Search

Vicarious liability is the treatment, regardless of fault, of one defender as liable for another defender's wrong. The basic inquiry involves examination of whether (i) the defenders stand in a relationship capable of giving rise to vicarious liability; and (ii) the wrongdoing is relevantly linked to that relationship. Unsatisfactory though the reality and its results may be, the contours of these core components are sculpted as new fact patterns come before the courts, and judges emphasise differently and compromise between various policy goals. The elementary principles are quite well-settled, especially given a relative paucity of case law and literature. But room for refinement remains. We here further analyse issues of interest in Scotland and beyond concerning the basic inquiry, and clarify the unimportance in this context of the distinctiveness of Scots law, before summarising our conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the general rule of liability, a person is responsible for their own acts or acts committed under their instruction. Therefore, liability arising from the act of another person has exceptions and is contrary to the general rule. Another form of liability arising from the act of another person is known in common law as "vicarious liability," which is interpreted as proxy liability. In the civil liability sources of common law, the discussion of employer's liability for the actions of their employees has been addressed under the same title. This article, using a descriptive-analytical method, examines the latest theories on the foundations and conditions of this liability in Iran’s and England’s laws. According to Article 12 of the Iranian Civil Liability Law, employer's liability is based on the theory of fault and its specificity lies only in the fact that it arises from the act of another person. In contrast, in English law, this liability is considered distinctive from two perspectives: firstly, it is contrary to the principle of personal liability, and secondly, it falls within the framework of the theory of strict liability and is solely based on the element of harm.

This study explores the legal responsibility and ideal concepts in compensating victims of personal data misuse, focusing on the ambiguous regulations within Indonesia's Personal Data Protection Act (UU PDP). The research, conducted through a normative-juridical approach employing conceptual and legislative methods, assessed primary legal materials including UUD NRI 1945 and UU PDP, along with secondary legal materials like books, journals, and non-legal materials such as language dictionaries. The results identified an existing lack of clarity in the UU PDP regarding the embraced accountability concept, potentially impairing the optimal filing of compensation claims by personal data subjects. It concluded that adopting the legal accountability concept of vicarious liability could ensure legal certainty for victims and simplify obtaining compensation for personal data misuse. The study implies the necessity for the adoption of vicarious liability, particularly in compensating victims of data misuse, by future institutions involved in personal data protection. Highlights: • Ambiguity in Regulation: The UU PDP's lack of clarity concerning legal accountability may lead to suboptimal compensation claims for personal data subjects. • Ideal Concept Identified: The vicarious liability concept was determined as an ideal basis for legal accountability in compensating victims of personal data misuse. • Implication for Future Institutions: The findings suggest the importance of adopting vicarious liability in future data protection institutions, particularly regarding compensation for data misuse victims. Keywords: Vicarious Liability, Personal Data Protection, Legal Responsibility, Compensation, Normative-Juridical Analysis

According to the general rule of liability, a person is responsible for their own acts or acts committed under their instruction. Therefore, liability arising from the act of another person has exceptions and is contrary to the general rule. Another form of liability arising from the act of another person is known in common law as "vicarious liability," which is interpreted as proxy liability. In the civil liability sources of common law, the discussion of employer's liability for the actions of their employees has been addressed under the same title. This article, using a descriptive-analytical method, examines the latest theories on the foundations and conditions of this liability in Iran's and England's laws. According to Article 12 of the Iranian Civil Liability Law, employer's liability is based on the theory of fault and its specificity lies only in the fact that it arises from the act of another person. In contrast, in English law, this liability is considered distinctive from two perspectives: firstly, it is contrary to the principle of personal liability, and secondly, it falls within the framework of the theory of strict liability and is solely based on the element of harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the issue of liability for artificial intelligence through the analysis of civil liability for autonomous entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. First, it addresses the issue of applying vicarious liability in the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it elaborates on its limitations. The example of the treatment of animals in case law indicates the possibility of creatively interpreting the existing legal framework in order to create a functional equivalent of situations that are not included in the scope of vicarious liability, but nonetheless treat liability for autonomous entities.

This is the first work to explore the possibility of holding sports governing bodies and competition organisers vicariously liable for the tortious behaviour of athletes that compete under their auspices. In contrast to other scholarly contributions on vicarious liability in sport, this paper examines the scope of responsibility for athletes in individual sports (as opposed to team sports). It begins by drawing upon the recent tribunal proceedings between professional cyclist Jess Varnish and British Cycling to analyse the employment status of government-funded individual athletes. In calling for a contextual and policy-sensitive approach to the definition of an 'employee', this paper argues that certain normative and theoretical considerations ought to be granted more or less weight depending on the particular legal issue animating the dispute. Thereafter, and with one eye on the overly intrusive regulatory provisions found in sports such as tennis and golf, this paper also demonstrates that the vicarious liability of governing bodies and competition organisers could equally be extended to cover the tortious conduct of non-funded individual athletes. In making these claims, it is demonstrated how a sport-specific application of the doctrine may help to teach us a few broader lessons about vicarious liability more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the research is to learn more about the concept of beneficial ownership (BO) as an approach for criminal liability in lieu of spatial planning crimes for corporations that lack assets or corporations that can only pay a portion of the crime. Several regions of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia have experienced widespread violations of spatial planning, according to some experts, as a result of substantive weaknesses, including the UUPR’s criminal sanction system’s philosophical, theoretical, and legal flaws, particularly its criminal sanctions for corporations. Theoretically, several theories of corporate criminal responsibility have not been able to reach corporate convicts in spatial planning crimes. The research method uses normative juridical methods. This research method is a legal research method that bases its analysis on applicable laws and regulations that are relevant to the research topic. The results of the study show that the UUPR on corporate criminal sanctions is incomplete, and the formulation of the norms does not address substitute punishment for corporate criminals who lack assets or who can only afford a part of their sentence. The UUPR’s corporate criminal sanctions were not functional as a result of the incompleteness of the norms’ formulation, preventing the achievement of the law’s goals. The term “beneficial ownership” (BO) refers to natural persons who ultimately own or control (ultimately owns or controls) clients and/or people whose transactions are executed on their behalf. The BO concept and regulations regarding BO transparency indicate that it can be used as an approach to reach alternative criminal liability for corporations. In terms of philosophy, the BO concept is consistent with the goal of criminal punishment for corporations; specifically, by imprisoning the actual beneficiary, the payment of the penalty can be used to return the space’s damage to its original state, or at the very least, it can have a deterrent effect on those who use the space in an improper manner. So, for the Ius constituendum it is proposed to formulate criminal norms in lieu of fines for corporations by expanding accountability through the beneficial ownership (BO) concept approach.

Copyright of Social Sciences & Humanities Studies / Društvene i Humanističke Studije (DHS) is the property of Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences, University of Tuzla 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 common law on vicarious liability is unsatisfactory because the doctrine is couched at such a high level of generality that it cannot yield predictable results when applied to a given fact situation. This paper is an attempt to inject some precision into the doctrine. It examines and rejects three justifications for the doctrine: effective compensation/risk spreading, deterrence and certain theories related to quid pro quo. It then proposes the most suitable justification for the doctrine: vicarious liability is imposed because and when the defendant, by placing the tortfeasor in the position in its organisation that it did with that position's accompanying privileges and demands, had created or significantly enhanced the risk of the claimant's injury. Three implications follow from this justification: (1) there is no vicarious liability for the wrongful acts of independent contractors; (2) agency reasoning should be rejected; and (3) we should stop using the phrase 'enterprise-risk approach'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the predominance of the principle of personal responsibility, social necessities and demands of today’s societies have caused the legal systems in some cases to protect the rights of injured ones and those who commit damage while being unable to compensate for it, by considering other persons under whose protection and supervision the perpetrator has been liable. The clear example of this liability known as vicarious liability in Common law, is the employer’s civil liability for the actions of his employees, and the determination of genuine foundation of liability is an essential challenge in scope of civil liability and will be considered in this article. The different legislation of Article 12 of the Civil Liability Code has created several interpretations about the foundation of civil liability in Iranian law such as theories of assumed fault, the guarantee of right and the risk. Therefore, this article intends to identify initially the employer’s strict liability as a basis of governing to Common law referring to the policies such as attributability, economic analysis of civil liability, and loss-spreading and then, to introduce the strict or liability without fault as the foundation of governing to the employer`s civil liability in Iranian law through juridical bases arranged in the Civil Code and Islamic Penal Code such as theory of conventional invocation of damages and ambiguity resolution about Article 12 of the Civil Liability Code.

Technical and information progress undoubtably have an influence on the trade market and the consumer service sector of the modern economy. The sphere of taxi companies is no exception. When a user downloads a taxi-aggregation company’s application and orders a taxi, using its information about a carrier, this causes uncertainty in the qualifcation of the legal relationship between aggregator, carrier, and consumer. This ambiguity becomes critical if non-performance of the contract causes injury or non-pecuniary loss to a passenger. In this case, a concurrence arises between contact and tort qualifcation of the claim against the carrier and/or aggregator. The essay examines approaches to the distribution of liability between the aggregator, the carrier, and other persons who could contribute to causing harm, from the point of view of contract and tort law.

Who is responsible when an AI machine causes something to go wrong? Or is there a gap in the ascription of responsibility? Answers range from claiming there is a unique responsibility gap, several different responsibility gaps, or no gap at all. In a nutshell, the problem is as follows: on the one hand, it seems fitting to hold someone responsible for a wrong caused by an AI machine; on the other hand, there seems to be no fitting bearer of responsibility for this wrong. In this article, we focus on a particular (aspect of the) AI responsibility gap: it seems fitting that someone should bear the legal consequences in scenarios involving AI machines with design defects; however, there seems to be no such fitting bearer. We approach this problem from the legal perspective, and suggest vicarious liability of AI manufacturers as a solution to this problem. Our proposal comes in two variants: the first one has a narrower range of application, but can be easily integrated in current legal frameworks; the second one requires a revision of current legal frameworks, but has a wider range of application. The latter variant employs a broadened account of vicarious liability. We emphasise strengths of the two variants and finally highlight how vicarious liability offers important insights for addressing a moral AI responsibility gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background While chiropractic care is most commonly provided within a private practice context, the ‘traditional’ solo practice is now uncommon. Chiropractors, manual therapists and related health professionals commonly work within the same practice bringing obvious advantages to both the practitioners and their patients. However, multi-practitioner, multi-disciplinary clinics also carry often unrecognized liabilities. We refer here to vicarious liability and non-delegable duties. Vicarious liability refers to the strict liability imposed on one person for the negligent acts of another person. The typical example is an employer being held vicariously liable to the negligent acts of an employee. However, vicarious liability can arise outside of the employer-employee relationship. For example, under non-delegable duty provisions, an entity owing a non-delegable duty can be liable for an independent contractor’s wrongdoing. After a plain English explanation of this complex area of law, we provide seven scenarios to demonstrate how vicarious liability can envelop practice principals when things go wrong. We also make suggestions for risk mitigation. Conclusion Practice owners may unexpectedly find themselves legally liable for another’s actions with dire consequences. A knowledge of vicarious liability along with implementing risk mitigation strategies has the potential to minimize the likelihood of this unwanted event. Recommendations are made to this end.

Summary: In 1599, Dutch privateer Melchior van den Kerckhoven unlawfully captured the Venetian merchantman Ponte , which resulted in extensive legal proceedings before the Supreme Court of Holland, Zeeland and West-Friesland. The Ponte case soon became the centrepiece for discussions about vicarious liability of shipowners for unlawful acts of their shipmasters, and – more importantly – about limitation of this liability to (the value of) their ship and cargo. Within these discussions, a secondary role was reserved for the case arising from the capture of the French ship Levrette by a Dutch merchantman in 1610. Based on extensive archival research, the present article offers a detailed reconstruction of the facts and proceedings of the Ponte and the Levrette case, and sets out how these cases were employed by Roman-Dutch lawyers to give shape to limited liability of shipowners for unlawful acts of their shipmaster. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: to develop a concept and methodological approaches for establishing objective bankruptcy based on financial and economic tools.Methods: the study used general scientific methods of cognition, including a systematic approach, analysis and synthesis, logical and comparative analysis, the method of grouping and generalization, expert analysis, methods of scientific classification, tabular methods of data visualization.Results: the need to change the concept of determining insolvency by introducing the term “objective bankruptcy” is due to the need to revise approaches to its assessment, as well as the importance for the country’s economy of determining actual organizations that are bankrupt, and the ambiguity of the existing theoretical and methodological approaches to the analysis of problematic companies. To achieve the study objectives, the differences were identified between the traditional under- standing of the signs of bankruptcy and a modern interpretation of an objective bankruptcy; a classification of characteristics and reasons of the objective bankruptcy was proposed; principles and methodological approaches to using financial and economic tools for objective evidence of the bankruptcy were elaborated; the general algorithm of substantiating the date of objective bankruptcy was proposed; the peculiarities of imposing vicarious liability on the entities controlling the debtor in case of objective bankruptcy are found. Scientific novelty: for the first time, the economic and financial tools to establish the objective bankruptcy are disclosed in detail: the components of proximate analysis are identified, based on the characteristics following directly from the definition of objective bankruptcy, and in-depth (extended) analysis, revealing the financial-economic, organizational, managerial, investment reasons for its occurrence; the aggregate blocks of factors are allocated to identify the objective signs of bankruptcy; the algorithm is proposed for determining the moment of insolvency and specifying the amount of vicarious liability of the entities controlling the debtor, which involves implies not a purely accounting approach, but the one taking into account the actual conditions of the debtor’s activity, the amount of their obligations and the market value of property. Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the scientific work can be used: a) in scientific activities for further development of financial and economic tools for determining the objective bankruptcy of companies; b) in law enforcement practice when considering the issues of imposing vicarious liability on the entities controlling the debtor in case of bankruptcy; c) by the National Association of self-regulated organizations of trustees when developing a federal standard or guidelines for conducting a financial analysis of debtor companies by trustees.

In this article, we extend the model of Newman, H., and D. Wright. 1990. "Strict Liability in a Principal-Agent Model." International Review of Law and Economics 10: 219–231 and strengthens their result that the strict liability can attain social optimum in a principal-agent relation to the situation in which the court appreciates any contractual terms regarding apportionment of damages between an employer and an employee under vicarious liability rule. Our model also generalizes and extends vicarious liability to the negligence-based liability rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the nauseating and recurring problem of sexual harassment of female students by lecturers in Nigerian tertiary institutions in recent times and questions whether the extant regulatory and policy frameworks are weak in addressing the problem. The recent exposure of sexual misconduct or "sex-for-marks" by some Nigerian university lecturers in a 53-minutes video released by a BBC African Eye secret agent, Kiki Mordi, appearing as a young applicant in search of an admission into a Nigerian university, illustrates that sexual harassment is ubiquitous in our higher educational institutions. Previous literature in this area have pointed out that there is a prevalence of female students being sexually pressured by their male lecturers in Nigerian higher institutions of learning, regardless whether they are public, private or faith-based institutions. But whether such pervasiveness and moral decadence is encouraged by dearth of binding or enforceable regulatory and policy frameworks is relatively lacking in most of the past articles examined. Also the repercussion on tertiary institutions, as employers, by way of vicarious liability arising from the sexual abuses perpetuated against female students by their employees would be examined in this article. To these extents, this article will fill the missing gaps. The study employs both primary and secondary sources of data information collection and shall subject same to content and contextual analysis in order to arrive at its conclusion. The article concludes that there are various potent provisions under existing Nigerian legislation which could successfully be relied upon in prosecuting harassers. The article also recommended inter alia, that the government and tertiary institutions must consciously take bold steps in tackling this malady so that sexual harassment will not continue to be a critical issue in our tertiary institutions both in the present and the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Kingdom Supreme Court in Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2020] UKSC 12 held that a tortfeasor's motive was 'highly material' in considering the second stage 'close connection' test for vicarious liability. However, the authors submit that this reintroduction of motive is highly problematic. It runs contrary to previous jurisprudence and backslides into the rigid artificiality which the 'close connection' test was supposed to solve. A revised approach to the 'close connection' test is suggested, involving an objective consideration of the connection between the tortfeasor's employment and the circumstances surrounding the tort. This approach remedies the above-mentioned problems and existing academic criticism of the 'close connection test', and further accurately reflects how the courts actually determine the second stage test for vicarious liability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While chiropractic care is most commonly provided within a private practice context, the 'traditional' solo practice is now uncommon. Chiropractors, manual therapists and related health professionals commonly work within the same practice bringing obvious advantages to both the practitioners and their patients. However, multi-practitioner, multi-disciplinary clinics also carry often unrecognized liabilities. We refer here to vicarious liability and non-delegable duties. Vicarious liability refers to the strict liability imposed on one person for the negligent acts of another person. The typical example is an employer being held vicariously liable to the negligent acts of an employee. However, vicarious liability can arise outside of the employer-employee relationship. For example, under non-delegable duty provisions, an entity owing a non-delegable duty can be liable for an independent contractor's wrongdoing. After a plain English explanation of this complex area of law, we provide seven scenarios to demonstrate how vicarious liability can envelop practice principals when things go wrong. We also make suggestions for risk mitigation. Conclusion: Practice owners may unexpectedly find themselves legally liable for another's actions with dire consequences. A knowledge of vicarious liability along with implementing risk mitigation strategies has the potential to minimize the likelihood of this unwanted event. Recommendations are made to this end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]