Substitute liability is a form of strict secondary responsibility that emerges under the general law doctrine of respondeat superior , the responsibility of the boss for the actions of their subordinates or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of a third party who has "the right, ability or obligation to control" the activities of an offender. This can be distinguished from contribution liabilities, another form of secondary obligation, rooted in the legal theory of corporate responsibility because, unlike a contributory breach, knowledge is not an element of representative accountability. The law has developed the view that some relationships with its nature require people involving others to accept responsibility for the mistakes of others. The most important relationships for practical purposes are employers and employees
Video Vicarious liability
Kewajiban perusahaan
Employers are responsible, under the doctrine of respondents superior, for the negligence of their employee's actions or negligence in employment (sometimes referred to as 'scope and employment'). To determine whether the employer is responsible, the difference between an independent contractor and an employee must be withdrawn. In order to be legally responsible, there should be a necessary relationship between the accused tortfeasor, which can be examined by three tests: a control test, an organizational test and an adequate relationship test. An employer may be held liable under the principle of representative accountability if the employee performs an authorized action in an unauthorized manner.
Employers may also be responsible under general legal principles represented in the Latin phrase, qui facit per alium facit per se (persons acting through other acts in their own interests). It is a parallel concept of strict responsibility and responsibility, where one person is responsible in criminal law or a lawsuit for the actions or omissions of others.
In Australia, an 'adequate relationship' test requires the balance of several factors such as the level of skill required in the job, the payment scheme, and the level of control given to the worker, has favored the approach. For actions to be considered in a job, it must be authenticated or linked to an authorized action which may be considered a mode, in spite of improper modes, to do so.
Courts sometimes distinguish between employee vs. "detours". "their own quarrel". For example, an employer would be responsible if it was shown that the employee had simply left in carrying out his or her duties, such as stopping to buy a drink or using an ATM machine while performing a job-related job, while an employee acting on his or her own right and not on the employer's business do "play games" and will not force the employer to be obliged.
Maps Vicarious liability
Principal Obligation
The owner of the car may be held responsible for the negligence made by a person to whom the car is lent, as if the owner is a perpetrator and the driver of his agent, if the driver is using the car mainly for the purpose of performing duties for the owner. The court is reluctant to extend this responsibility to owners of other types. For example, the owner of the aircraft will not be held responsible for the actions of a pilot who he has lent him to do the owner's purposes. In the United States, car representation responsibilities have been abolished in relation to rental and car rental in all 50 states.
One example is in the case of a bank, finance company, or other lender who re-owns the car from the registered owner for non-payment, the owner of the capital has an indefinable obligation not to cause a breach of peace in the reinstatement, or shall be liable for damages even if the repossession is done by the agent. This requirement means that whether the repossession is done by the business owner or by the agent, the owner shall not cause a breach of peace or the responsible party shall be liable.
This requirement for non-breach of peace is held by the owner of capital even if the offense is caused by, say, the debtor objection to repossession or refuse of repossession. In the case of court MBank El Paso v. Sanchez , 836 SW2d 151, where the rented repossessor pulled the car even after the registered owner locked himself in it, the court ruled that this was against the law. breach of peace and declare unauthorized repossession. The debtor is also given a $ 1,200,000 compensation from the bank. However, in particular, a breach of peace will always be a criminal offense. The criminal law provides separate and different responsibilities to each of the perpetrators who are deemed to be persons under the law, and therefore corporations and corporate employees may be charged with committing the same crime, in addition to any civil liability imposed by law.
Parent's obligation
In the United States, the question of parental responsibility generally follows the common law principle that parents are not accountably responsible for injury resulting from the negligence of a child simply because of a parent-child relationship.
When a child causes injury, parents can be held accountable for their own negligent acts, such as failure to properly monitor children, or failure to keep dangerous instruments such as pistols out of the reach of their children. Many states also passed laws that imposed some accountability on the parents for the deliberate misdemeanors committed by their small children.
Company liability in lawsuit
In UK law, a company can only act through its employees and agents so it is necessary to decide where the state of agency law or representative accountability will apply to hold the company responsible in a lawsuit against fraudulent directors or senior officials.
If the accountability of a particular lawsuit requires a state of mind, then in order to be responsible, the director or senior official must have a state of mind and must be associated with the company. In Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Limited v. Securities Commission <1995> 2 AC 500, two company employees, acting within the scope of their authority but not known by the directors, using corporate funds to acquire some shares. The question is whether the company knows, or should know, that it has acquired the stock.
The Advisory Board stated that it was true. Whether based on their actual or actual authority as agents acting in their authority (see Lloyd v Grace, Smith & amp; Co. 1912] AC 716) or as an employee acting in their work (see < (i) Armagas Limited v Mundogas SA, 1986] 1 AC 717), their acts and omissions and their knowledge may be attributed to the company, and this may cause accountability as a common disruption in which the directors have assumed responsibility on their own behalf and not just on behalf of the company.
Thus, if a director or officer is expressly authorized to make a particular class representation on behalf of the company, and fraudulently makes that class representation to a third party cause harm, the company will be liable even if a particular representative is not appropriate. how to do what he or she is authorized to do. The level of authority is a matter of fact and significantly more than the fact of work that gives employees the opportunity to commit fraud.
In the Limited Development Guildford v Fidelis Furnishing Limited Fabric [1971] 2 QB 711, the company secretary who fraudulently hires the car for its own use without the knowledge of the managing director. A company secretary regularly enters into a contract with a company name and has administrative responsibilities that will give clear authority to rent a car. Therefore, the company is responsible.
Employee continuous liability and indemnification
Common misconceptions involve employee responsibility for painful acts committed within the scope and authority of their work. Although the employer is responsible for a superior respondeat to employee behavior, the employee, as well, remains jointly responsible for the losses incurred. As the Legal Affirmation of American Legal Entities, Third Ã, § 7.01 states,
Agents are subject to accountability to third parties who are harmed by the torturous behavior of agents. Unless the applicable law states otherwise, an offender remains subject to obligations even if the actor acts as an agent or employee, with real or real authority, or within the scope of work.
Every American country follows this same rule.
The question of compensation arises when only the employee or solely the employer is sued. If only the employee is sued, then the employee may seek redress from the employer if the behavior is within the course and scope of their work. If only the employer is sued, the employer may try to avoid liability by claiming employee behavior is outside the scope of the employee's authority, but the employer generally can not sue the employee to recover compensation for the employee's claim. For an example of a court confirming an employer's right to sue an employee for damages, see the case of Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co. Ltd.
Church companies
In the 2003 decision Doe v. Bennett, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in cases of abuse scandals involving Catholic priests, responsibility comes from the authority and authority over parishioners the Church gives to pastors.
See also
- Attribution (legal)
- Qui facit per alium facit per se
- Superior command
- Strangely Risk Doctrine
- Substitute responsibilities under English law
Note
References
- H Laski, 'Basic Responsibility' (1916) 26 Yale Law Journal 105
- Department of Commerce & amp; Industry. Company Legal Review: License Attribution (PDF)
External links
Bramwell, George William Wilshere (1880). Corporate obligations . London: PS King.Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments