“Discuss the principle of vicarious responsibility or liability of the States under international law”
Introduction:
“Vicarious liability” is the sole responsibility of one party – in general, the legal framework “main” – for misconduct of another person – your “agent” – the actor whose activity is directed. As such responsibility, traditional form of vicarious liability is a strict school, in contrast to the vicarious liability imposed on directors or other parts, under a rule of law based on as negligence. At common law, the legal doctrine of respondent superior is the primary vehicle for holding directors liable for damages and other delicates their agents. According to this doctrine, the directors are jointly liable for the mistakes of the ‘scope of employment “for his behavior to the agents who have the legal right to control (” servants “) (Restatement (Second) of Agency, 1958, 2, 219, 220, 229). Much of corporate liability and damages in the United States for crimes so, vicarious liability is imposed under respondent superior or a similar doctrine.
Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for injury to a person who caused the injury, but has a particular legal relationship with the person who was negligent, also known as imputed negligence. Legal relationships that can lead to imputed negligence include the relationship between father and son husband and wife; own a car and driver, and employer and employee. Normally, the negligence of an independent person is not attributable to another person.
State Liability:
Under the English Common Law was the maxim “The King can do no wrong”, and therefore, the king was not responsible for the errors of his servants. However, in England the position of maximum old common law has been amended by the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. Earlier, the king could not be sued in tort, whether for evil actually authorized by it or its agents committed in the exercise of their functions[1]. With increasing functions of the State, the Crown Proceedings Act was passed, now the Crown is responsible for a wrongful act committed by employees, as an individual. Similarly, in the United States, the Federal Torts Claims Act of 1946 establishes the principles, which substantially decide the question of state responsibility.
Vicarious liability:
Responsibility is a form of vicarious liability, secondary stems from the common law doctrine of agency – respondent superior – superior responsibility for the acts of his subordinates, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of a third party who had the “ability to right or duty to control” the activities of a rapist. The responsibility is placed, not the tortfeasor, but rather someone who is supposed to have control over the tortfeasor.
Another theory is the responsibility:
Other theories of liability based on imputed negligence include policy and politics Respondent Superior family car.
The policy of respondent superior is based on the employer-employee relationship. The doctrine makes the employer responsible for the lack of attention from an employee in relation to whom the employer has a duty of care. To exceed the applicable defendant, the employee’s negligence must occur within the scope of their employment.
Although the drafters of the French Civil Code were influenced by the ideas of natural law in favor of a general concept of guilt, it was decided that some vicarious liability in the Code of 1804, although linked to the presumptions of guilt. Article 1384, which has been amended, provides that:[2]
(1) A person is responsible not only for the harm caused by his own act, but for that it is caused by the acts of persons for whom he is responsible, or the things that are in their custody.
(2) The father and mother if the father is deceased are responsible for damage caused by their minor children living with them.
(3) Teachers and employers, for damages caused by its officers and employees in the functions for which they have been employed.
(4) Teachers and artisans, as well as for damages caused by their pupils and apprentices during the time under their supervision.
(5) The above liability exists, unless the father and mother, teachers and artisans demonstrate that he could not prevent the act giving rise to this responsibility.
Employer responsibility:
The entrepreneur who has been legal responsibility for the negligence of the employee and who are considered an agent of the employer, if a negligent act committed by an employee acting within the framework of her or her employment, the employer will be liable for damages. For example, if the driver of a gasoline delivery truck passed a red light on the road to a service station and strikes another vehicle, causing injuries, the gas distribution company shall be liable for damages if the driver is found to be negligent. Because the company will automatically be found liable if the driver is negligent, defendant Superior is a form of strict liability.
Responsibility of workers:
Employees are vicariously liable under respondent superior policy by negligent acts or omissions of its employees in the course of employment. For an act are to be considered in the course employment or be authorized or be connected with an act authorized may be considered a way, but in a surprising way of performing it.
Courts sometimes distinguish between the “deviation” of an employee or “party.” For example, an employer will be liable if it proves that the employee had gone on a standard deviation in the performance of their duties, while an employee acting in their own right and not in the employer’s business is conducting a “party “and not subject the employer to liability.
On the other hand, the employer of an independent contractor is not vicariously liable for the acts committed against the contractor, unless the contractor injures someone whom the employer has delegated the duty of care, such as when the employer is an authority school and a pupil of the injured party.
Responsibility principals:
The owner of a car can be considered vicariously liable for negligence committed by a person who has borrowed the car, as if the owner was a principal and his agent driver, if the driver is using the car for the primary purpose to perform a task for the owner. Courts have been reluctant to extend this obligation to owners of other types of property. For example, the owner of an aircraft shall not be vicariously liable for the actions of a pilot which has been given to carry out the purpose of the owner. In the United States, vicarious liability by cars since been prohibited with respect to leasing and car rentals in all 50 states.
This requirement does not violate the peace is held in lien, even if the failure is due to, for example, the defaulter contest the seizure or resists the repossession. For the court of El Paso MBbank V. Sanchez, 836 SW2d 151, where he hired recovered or towed a car, even after the registered owner locked himself in it, the court decided that it was an illegal violation of peace and readmission declared invalid. The debtor was also awarded $ 1.2 million in damages for the bank.
Parental responsibilities:
In the United States, the issue of parental responsibility in general and the issue of parental vicarious liability for the unlawful acts of their children are increasing. What is clear is that parents may be responsible for its own negligent acts, such as lack of supervision of a child, or failure to maintain. Dangerous instrument like a pistol out of reach of children
The corporate responsibility in TOTR:
In English law, a company can only act through its employees and agents so it is necessary to decide what position of the law of agency or vicarious liability will apply to hold the corporation liable in tort for the frauds of its directors and senior managers.
If the liability for damage caused in particular requires a state of mind, then to be liable, the director or senior officer must have that state of mind and should be attributed to the company. In Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Limited v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500, two employees of the company, acting within the scope of its jurisdiction, but unknown to the directors, used company funds to acquire some shares[3]. The question was whether the company knew or should have known that it had acquired those shares.
The Privy Council held that it did. Whether the assets of its real or perceived authority as agents acting within their authority (see 716 Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC) or as employees acting in the course of their duties (see ARMAGAS Limited v MUNDOGAS SA [1986] 1 AC 717), their acts and omissions and their knowledge could be attributed to the company, and this could give rise to liability as joint tortfeasors where the directors have assumed responsibility on their own and not only on behalf of the company.
So if a director or officer expressly authorized to make statements of a particular class on behalf of the company, and fraudulently makes a representation of that class to a third party causing loss, the company is liable even though the particular representation was an inadequate way of doing what he was authorized to do so. The extent of authority is a question of fact and is much more than the fact of an employment which gave the employee the opportunity to carry out the fraud.
In Panorama Developments (Guildford) Limited v Fidelis Textile Limited [1971] 2 QB 711, a company secretary fraudulently hired cars for his own use without the knowledge of the director general. A company secretary routinely enters into contracts on behalf of the company and has administrative responsibilities that would give apparent authority to hire cars. Therefore, the company was responsible.
Conclusion:
While vicarious liability cannot be of concern for most employees working in the office, it remains an important part of lack of work that must be understood by all employees. Do not be fooled into thinking that you are covered by your office for any act of negligence; it is always a good idea to have your own malpractice insurance separately. Each state has different laws take the time to learn and learn what your options are yours if you are in this form of liability. This is not an alternative to legal advice; seek counsel to understand their rights
References:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vicarious+Liability
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3715
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2223
http://humanrights.gov.au/info_for_employers/employer_respons/index.html
[1] Crown Proceedings Act, 1947
[2] the French Civil Code Article 1384
[3] Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Limited v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500,