Search

Vicarious liability is one of the types of responsibilities arising from other's action. In US law, unlike Iranian legal system, there is a general rule upon which whenever under the control persons, commits a copyright infringement and thereby a financial benefit get to the supervisor, the latter, shall be subject to the vicarious liability. Undoubtedly, children are among the most prominent examples of persons under the control that this usually occurs by their parents. Furthermore, in Current age, it is possible that many infringements occur by children, especially in the Internet. Parents will generally be subject to the vicarious liability for copyright infringements their children. In US law, has been suggested the probability of parental responsibility for copyright by children based on the general rule of vicarious responsibility, while it seems that the nature of the relationship between parents and children and the bases of suggesting parental liability for children's fault, demands some differences in this regard. Parental responsibility for children's torts in Iranian law, unlike US law, is based on fault and care rather than control and compliance, and this is an advantage of Iranian law.

This article endeavours to find answers to the question of why the victims of sexual harassment often resign after the harassment, while the perpetrator continues working, and suggests how some of the human cost to victims of sexual harassment can be prevented. E v Ikwezi Municipality provides a classic example of how the failure of the employer to protect the victim exacerbated her suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), eventually leaving her with no option but to resign. Had the employer conducted a risk analysis, it could have prevented the sexual harassment by alerting employees to the content of the Code of Good Practice on the Handling of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Further, had the employer been aware that it was responsible for the victim's psychological safety also after the disciplinary hearing, it could have taken measures to ensure her safety. The unsatisfactory sanction (the harasser was not dismissed) could lastly have been referred to the Labour Court for review. Unfortunately, the wrong legal advice and an incompetent chairperson led to the municipality’s failing adequately to protect the victim. This caused (and aggravated) the symptoms of PTSD, which forced the victim to resign.

In modern Austrian civil law, there are certain provisions stipulating a contractual liability for losses caused by third parties, despite the general principle of personal liability as laid down in § 1313 ABGB. Most prominently, there is § 1313a ABGB, introduced by the Third Partial Amendment (1916) to the Austrian Civil Code of 1811, providing a strict vicarious liability. In classical Roman law, the idea of a personal responsibility has prevailed, too. Nevertheless, there are cases which affirm a contractual liability for losses caused by third parties in the field of locatio conductio (contract of lease/contract for work/contract of employment). The paper ‘Vicarious Liability in Roman locatio conductio?’ by Dr. David Tritremmel, Postdoctoral Fellow of the ARS IURIS VIENNA – DOCTORAL SCHOOL, examines the legal basis of contractual liability for losses caused by third parties in the field of locatio conductio and addresses the question whether there has already been a strict vicarious liability in classical Roman law comparable to § 1313a ABGB.

Harvard's Perma.cc offers the solution to link rot—the phenomenon that citations in academic journals to Web materials disappear with the passage of time, resulting in "broken links" and disappearance of material from the Web. This article will describe Perma.cc and outline the kinds of copyright issues that may arise, including heavy use of copyright statutes and case law. It will examine the kind of preservation use of copyrighted materials, with reference to fair use, and the library prerogatives as exceptions to the exclusive rights of authors of materials found on the Web. This analysis includes detailed analysis of "transformative use" and the four factors of 17 U.S.C. § 107. It will consider the liability of Perma.cc and participating libraries and institutions under theories of contributory infringement and vicarious liability, including as modified by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) and (d), governing takedown notices. The article concludes that Perma.cc's archival use is neither firmly grounded in existing fair use nor library exemptions; that Perma.cc, its "registrar" library, institutional affiliates, and its contributors have some (at least theoretical) exposure to risk; and that current copyright doctrines and law do not adequately address Web archival storage for scholarly purposes. In doing so, it will question what the role of the scholarly Perma.cc citation ought to play—confirmation of scholarly propositions or preservation of and access to Web materials. The material and conclusions in this article are important for legal authors, law review editors, and librarians (especially those who use, support, or are considering partnering with Perma.cc) so that they might better assess copyright compliance, especially when selecting materials for archiving, such as articles from news sites, blogs, and professional and scholarly papers, articles, or books. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, the Supreme Court rejected the claimants' argument that Barclays should be vicariously liable for the sexual assaults of a doctor hired on as a contractor to perform medical examinations on employees and job candidates at the bank. It upheld the traditional rule that a defendant is not vicariously liable for the torts of independent contractors. This commentary examines the law on liability for independent contractors and considers whether the Supreme Court decision is consistent with modern employment trends. The implications of the decision for medical law are then discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Direito GV is the property of Fundacao Getulio Vargas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Mediterranean seaboard stretching across the Middle East consists of lands carved into states that are the inheritance of many older civilisations. These countries are at the intersection of the ancient and the modern world. The Libyan state, which was destroyed in 20l1, on the pretext of regime change was a fusion of classical and Arab civilisation, and the archaeological sites that were once in excellent order now lie in ruins in the wake of the subsequent civil war. The takeover by factions of mostly Berbers who were given autonomy of conduct by NATO forces allowed the artistic treasures to be systematically dismantled and shipped abroad. The westernbacked "rebels," often supported by irregular armies recruited from other Arab territories counties, displaced the Roman architectural sites that was Libya's heritage. This amounts to a breach of the Hague Conventions which is a crime in international law; however, the lack of a chain of command makes it difficult to prosecute their commanders. The issue, then, is can the arming and logistical support by the US/NATO of the armed factions bind them in vicarious liability for the destruction of cultural property in Libya. This paper argues that there should be a new annex to the Convention that conveys responsibility for collateral damage to state parties who strategically support, with aerial bombardment, the irregular militias who plunder its heritage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In April 2020, the Supreme Court in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] overturned the decisions of the Court of Appeal in applying the law regarding vicarious liability of employees and others (and deciding in both cases that the defendant companies were not liable for the acts in question). The scope of responsibilities which the employment relationship brings, together with an awareness among many businesses of the classification worker, along with the more familiar employed/self-employed status, makes an examination of the outcomes and potential impact of these cases of wide, practical interest for those running businesses, large or small. The review concluded that there had been no dramatic change in the law but that the cases provide a measure of comfort to employers in something of a common-sense view being taken as to the scope of vicarious liability. They also add to the body of case law, helping to ensure that future issues can more clearly be reasoned out of court, with the detailed steer on the application of legal principles which a Supreme Court judgment provides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper identifies two paradigms of vicarious liability. One is an established paradigm of 'liberal agency' found in cases where owner-managers 'act through' workers, with whom they have personal relations, in undertaking work tasks. The second paradigm is found in cases concerning bureaucratic organisations, which are characterised by chains of command and variegated decision-making procedures. Courts have grounded organisational responsibility in features such as structure, hierarchy, and control, which this paper uses to construct a model of the 'deterrable organisation'. The deterrable organisation has important capacities to effect change in behaviour that courts rely on in order to prevent worker wrongdoing. The paper tests the viability of the model against the empirical literature and argues that courts could improve outcomes by a more targeted use of powers to award remedies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ragging has become a serious social evil. Millions of university students are ragged in India every year. While a perpetrator can be sued by the victim; it has not dented the escalation of ragging. Holding institutions responsible for preventing ragging is the only way to curb it. This can be by way of both public and private accountability of universities. The paper focuses on the latter. We submit a victim of ragging can sue the university for failure to prevent ragging for breach of the university–student contract, for negligence, under vicarious liability, breach of statutory duty, contravention of a non-delegable duty, and on the basis of misfeasance in public office by a rogue university officer. A private action will have a salutary effect on society, in particular universities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On March 1, 2005, the Samuelson Clinic filed a brief amicus curiae in the U.S. Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster on behalf of 60 law professors and the U.S. Public Policy Committee of the Association for Computing Machinery. USACM is the world's oldest and largest international scientific and educational organization composed of 78,000 computing professionals dedicated to advancing the arts, sciences, and applications of information technology.The brief argues that this case is fundamentally about technology policy, not about file sharing or copyright infringement. Each of the alternative secondary liability standards for which the petitioners and others argue would dramatically change the balance of power between the entertainment and the technology industries (despite the absence of a statutory basis in copyright law for this change), and would disrupt settled expectations in the information technology industry. For more than 20 years, both the technology and entertainment industries have experienced unprecedented technological innovation and economic prosperity under the fundamental framework created by the Sony rule that developers are not secondarily liable when the technologies they create are capable of substantial non-infringing uses. The alternative tests for secondary liability proposed by the petitioners and various amici would upset settled expectations and mire the courts in subjective reviews of new technologies—a recipe for instability and confusion that would severely impair innovation and technological development.The brief further argues that the Sony rule has prevented the very confusion and instability in copyright that, in the patent context, led to Congress's enactment of the staple article of commerce rule. Prior to the enactment of 35 U.S.C. § 271, secondary liability in patent law was decided on a case-by-case basis, and various courts imposed different liability standards, creating instability and uncertainty in patent law. Section 271 was added to the patent statute to clarify and stabilize secondary liability rules, and it has been largely successful in doing so—just as Sony has been in the copyright context. Finally, the brief argues that only Congress has the institutional competence to craft rules that address new technological developments such as the peer-to-peer file-sharing phenomenon.

The paper deals with the institute of vicarious liability related to the actions of an agent. By the previous legislation this issue was handled only very inadequately. Neither the doctrine, however, has in any way contributed to the development of the dogmatics of this legal institute. A fundamental change in the Czech legal environment has been introduced by the new Civil Code which in paragraph 2914 in conjunction with paragraph 1935 regulates the vicarious liability in the way that is very close to the concept of this institute in related legal orders. One the one side, the paper discusses the principal’s liability while examining its prerequisite, then, on the other side, especially analyses this liability within the contractual relations and beyond them, i.e. in the area of tort liability. Besides, it is also deals with the agent’s own liability excluded by the previous legislation. More attention is then focused on the direct agent’s liability who is an employee where it is necessary to take into account the specifics of his/her special protected status.

The article discusses the concept of vicarious liability in the area of competition law. It argues that this concept is to some extent embedded in the concept of the undertaking under competition law with the consequence that parent companies – under certain conditions – can be held liable for competition law infringements committed by subsidiaries. The liability can be termed “vicarious” because it is imposed regardless of whether the parent company was involved in or ought to have had any knowledge of the competition law infringements committed by the subsidiary. Whereas such liability has until recently only been imposed for administrative fines, the Skanska decision changes this. Following this decision it must be assumed that parent companies can also be held vicariously liable for civil liability incurred by a subsidiary. It is pointed out that it is a separate question whether the Akzo-presumption rule, established with regard to the imposition of fines for competition law infringements, can also be applied in a pure civil liability case concerning parental liability. Next, the article discusses whether the results reached in the area of competition law can be transferred to other areas of the law. In this regard, the article analyses recent case law with regard to parental liability for workers’ injuries and environmental damage and compares these areas of the law to competition law. Finally, the article discusses whether the concept of the undertaking can be extended to apply also in situations where companies are not tied by ownership but by contract. In this regard the article focuses on the (possibly) emerging concept of supply chain liability.

Copyright of Derecho Penal y Criminologia is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia, Departamento de Derecho Penal y Criminologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article endeavours to find answers to the question of why the victims of sexual harassment often resign after the harassment, while the perpetrator continues working, and suggests how some of the human cost to victims of sexual harassment can be prevented. E v Ikwezi Municipality provides a classic example of how the failure of the employer to protect the victim exacerbated her suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), eventually leaving her with no option but to resign. Had the employer conducted a risk analysis, it could have prevented the sexual harassment by alerting employees to the content of the Code of Good Practice on the Handling of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Further, had the employer been aware that it was responsible for the victim's psychological safety also after the disciplinary hearing, it could have taken measures to ensure her safety. The unsatisfactory sanction (the harasser was not dismissed) could lastly have been referred to the Labour Court for review. Unfortunately, the wrong legal advice and an incompetent chairperson led to the municipality's failing adequately to protect the victim. This caused (and aggravated) the symptoms of PTSD, which forced the victim to resign. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thailand's Civil and Commercial Code, introduced in 1925, represents a voluntary major legal transplantation by which Thailand adopted a complete new code based on foreign models. This article traces the development of Section 425, which confers liability on employers vicariously for the wrongful acts of their employees, and reveals that the concepts present in the stated sources of the provision do not match those represented by the section in its final form. Rather, the concepts hint at another source, unstated and hitherto uncredited as a source of this part of the Code, the English law doctrine of vicarious liability. This conclusion sheds new light on the complex process of legal transplantation and legal reform in Thailand during the early twentieth century, challenging the orthodox view, and has wider implications for those considering the societal factors which guide and shape legal reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Questioning of Catholic Church leaders in the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has revealed a distinct sense of immunity and lack of responsibility for the crimes of church personnel, which has resulted in stymied justice for complainants in sexual abuse lawsuits. In this article, I explore this immunity by examining it in the context of treatments of sexual harms in other areas of private law, particularly religious exceptions to discrimination law, by which religious organizations are granted immunity from the modern rationale of the harms of discrimination on the grounds of sex and sexual orientation. In situating child sexual abuse claims in the broader sphere of private law, I aim to reveal law’s incoherent logic of sexual harms, and its implications for justice. The example of religious exceptions illustrates an incoherent problematization of sexual harm and responsibility in contemporary legal and political systems that aim to uphold modern values of equality and dignity while sustaining incompatible doctrines of religious autonomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A person whose privacy has been infringed upon through the unlawful, culpable processing of his or her personal information can sue the infringer's employer based on vicarious liability or institute action based on the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPI). Section 99(1) of POPI provides a person (a "data subject") whose privacy has been infringed upon with the right to institute a civil action against the responsible party. POPI defines the responsible party as the person who determines the purpose of and means for the processing of the personal information of data subjects. Although POPI does not equate a responsible party to an employer, the term "responsible party" is undoubtedly a synonym for "employer" in this context. By holding an employer accountable for its employees' unlawful processing of a data subject's personal information, POPI creates a form of statutory vicarious liability. Since the defences available to an employer at common law and developed by case law differ from the statutory defences available to an employer in terms of POPI, it is necessary to compare the impact this new statute has on employers. From a risk perspective, employers must be aware of the serious implications of POPI. The question that arises is whether the Act perhaps takes matters too far. This article takes a critical look at the statutory defences available to an employer in vindication of a vicarious liability action brought by a data subject in terms of section 99(1) of POPI. It compares the defences found in section 99(2) of POPI and the common-law defences available to an employer fending off a delictual claim founded on the doctrine of vicarious liability. To support the argument that the statutory vicarious liability created by POPI is too harsh, the defences contained in section 99(2) of POPI are further analogised with those available to an employer in terms of section 60(4) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA) and other comparable foreign data protection statutes.

This article explains case law precedent that has made it clear that even illegal immigrants without the requisite documents, or work permits, who are illegally in South Africa enjoy the protection provided in terms of labour legislation. The reason for this is that the constitutional right to fair labour practices is applicable to everyone including illegal immigrants. Secondly this article sets out the law with regard to xenophobic acts in the hospitality industry. It explains under what circumstances an employer can dismiss employees for partaking in xenophobic acts. It describes under what circumstances an employer can be held liable for damages and harm suffered by an employee who is a victim of xenophobic acts. It explains what steps an employer should take in order to avoid such liability.