Bow Valley College - Business Law: Vicarious Liability Analysis Essay

This essay examines the concept of vicarious liability within the frameworks of employment and agency law. It defines vicarious liability as a form of secondary liability where one person is held responsible for the actions of another, particularly in the context of employers being liable for their employees' actions. The essay discusses the conditions necessary for establishing vicarious liability, including the 'course of service' requirement and the employer's control over the employee's actions. It also explores the relationship between agents and principals, highlighting the principal's responsibility for the agent's tortious actions based on common agency law principles like 'respondeat superior.' The essay references legal scholars and case law to support its arguments, providing a comprehensive analysis of vicarious liability and its implications in business law. The essay also mentions the references used in APA format.

Running head: QUESTION 1
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
STUDENT DETAILS:
3/7/2019

QUESTION 2
Question 3
The vicarious liability is considered as the condition in which one person is held liable
for the omission and wrong acts of another person. In respect of the workstation, the manager
may be held responsible for the omission or wrong actions of his workers, provided this may be
stated that they took place in respect of the employment of the personnel. Accordingly the
vicarious liability refers to the form of secondary liability, which takes place as per the agency’s
common law principle. Sometimes, the vicarious liability is also known as imputed liability. It is
the officially permitted concept, which allocates the responsibility to the person who did not
really cause the injury or damage, however who has the particular greater authorized association
to an individual who did cause injury or damage (Deakin, 2018).
The law has established the viewpoint that certain relations by the nature need the person
who involves other people to take the accountability for the unlawful activity of those other
people. The very significant such relations for realistic objectives are that of employees and
employers. Consequently, the employers can be responsible for the acts during commission of
the job of workers or employees of the company. In order for the actions to be regarded “in a
course of service,” then it is required by the employers to have authority of these actions. The
employers should have regulated these acts (Silink & Ryan, 2018).
Mostly, it is required by the offender to establish the facts of vicarious liability. In the
case where offender cannot establish the facts of vicarious liability, then the court can give the
order that the employer is not accountable for the damage. The first fact of vicarious liability,
which is required to prove, is that the contract the worker entered in as the service’s condition
needed the worker to do functions in the control of his employer. The other fact is that the there

QUESTION 3
is a control of employer over his employee, and the employee’s acts cover in the scope of service
of employee when an event takes place (Sharkey, 2019).
Furthermore, in reference of the relationship between agent and principal, the vicarious
liability refers to the imposition of accountability over the principal on agent’s actions. Here, the
vicarious liability finds the base over the principal of common agency law such as the principle
of ‘let your master respond’ (respondeat superior), attributing the actions of an agent on his
principal. In relation of the agency, three reasons have been recognized by Dal Pont to underlie
the obligation of responsibility on the principal for agent’s tortious actions. First reason is that
the agents are selected by the principal and they have good sources of assessing the quality.
Second reason is that the performances of certain class of actions have been passed on the agent;
this is not unfair that principal must take the risks of his agent in more than her or his powers.
The next reason is that the common powers have been given by the principal to agent to do
wrong acts or omission (Cohen, 2017).

QUESTION 4
References
Cohen, G. M. (2017). Law and Economics of Agency and Partnership. The Oxford Handbook of
Law and Economics: Volume 2: Private and Commercial Law, 399.
Deakin, S. (2018). Organisational Torts: Vicarious Liability versus Non-Delegable Duty. The
Cambridge Law Journal, 77(1), 15-18.
Sharkey, C. M. (2019). Institutional Liability for Employees' Intentional Torts: Vicarious
Liability as a Quasi-Substitute for Punitive Damages. Valparaiso University Law
Review, 53, 18-35.
Silink, A., & Ryan, D. (2018). VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS. The Cambridge Law Journal, 77(3), 458-461.