Concept of Vicarious Liability - Employment & Agency Law
Verified
Added on 2023/04/23
|4
|699
|476
AI Summary
This article explains the concept of vicarious liability in employment and agency law. It discusses the relationship between employer and employee, tortuous act, and duration of employment. The article also cites relevant cases to illustrate the application of the doctrine.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Running Head: Vicarious Liability [Type the company name] CONCEPT OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY- EMPLOYMENT & AGENCY LAW [Type the document subtitle] System [Pick the date]
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Vicarious Liability Vicarious liability is holding a person liable and accountable for damages (compensation) or harm /injury caused by other individual. In Latin term this concept is known as “respondeat superior”. The concept mostly embedded in employment relationship where employers are responsible for the conduct or act of their employees during the tenure of employment. (Vicarious Liability). In agency law, employer becomes principal and employee becomes agents. The agent is authorized to represent the principal to other. If agent enters into a contract with the third party then it is assumed that principal has entered into the contract even if the third party and principal have never met. So, the principal will be liable for any wrong done by agent. This is the doctrine of vicarious liability. Vicarious Liabilityis a compilation by three components - 1.There should be relationship between employer and employee 2.There should be tortuous act 3.The act must be done within in duration of employment. The leading case on vicarious liability in Canada came in the Apex Court’s case,Bazley v. Curry (1999)(Bazley v. Curry, 1999)in which Justice McLachlin held that “employers may fairly be accountable where the act comes under the risk or hazard that business’ venture makes and exacerbates. The inquiry for each situation is if there is an association between the business venture and that misconduct which legitimizes inconvenience of vicarious liability on employer for any misconduct, regarding reasonable portion of results of the hazard and additionally prevention. In recent case ofK.L. v. 1163957799 Quebec Inc.(2015) ONSC 2417(K.L. v. 1163957799 Quebec Inc., 2015), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice heldthat the employer 2
Vicarious Liability Calypso Water Park Inc. could be held liable for vicarious liability. In this case, plaintiff K.L. affirms that she was assaulted by her manager at the park. The supposed assault occurred amid end of staff party facilitated on park’s ground. Justice Patrick Smith held that Calypso’s decision in facilitating a gathering at the working environment with unlimited liquor and without sufficient supervision were factors that could prompt a finding of vicarious liability. Legal maxim “Qui facit per alium facit per se” which literally can be translated as “the act of an agent is the act of the principal. There is fiduciary relationship between principal and agent as agency law is basically based on trust and faith.This principal of agency law was briefly discussed inCanadian Pacific Railway Co. v Lockhart(1942) AC 591(Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Lockhart, 1942). Claimants were boys who were living at a boarding house which was under surveillance of warden. Warden was held liable for sexually abuse of boys and the court held that the employers were vicariously liable for the act of the warden. It can be concluded by stating that concept of vicarious liability is advocated on the ground that despite the fact that principal/employer has not personally acted wrongfully but since he was in actual authority or control of the person doing the wrongful act, his liability for such wrongful act should not be excluded. The main element to be proven by the parties is that the act is done during the course of employment. Bibliography 3
Vicarious Liability Bazley v. Curry, 534 (The Supreme Court 1999). Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Lockhart, 591 (Privy Council 1942). K.L. v. 1163957799 Quebec Inc., 2417 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2015). Vicarious Liability. (n.d.). Retrieved 2019, from Legal Dictonary: https://legaldictionary.net/vicarious-liability/ 4