Tort law II
Part of the common law series
Negligent torts
Negligence  · Negligent hiring
Negligent entrustment  · Malpractice
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
Doctrines affecting liability
Duty of care  · Standard of care
Proximate cause  · Res ipsa loquitur
Calculus of negligence  · Eggshell skull
Vicarious liability  · Attractive nuisance
Rescue doctrine  · Duty to rescue
Comparative responsibility
Duties owed to visitors to property
Trespassers  · Licensees  · Invitees
Defenses to negligence
Contributory negligence
Last clear chance
Comparative negligence
Assumption of risk  · Intervening cause
Strict liability
Ultrahazardous activity
Products liability
Nuisance
Other areas of the common law
Contract law  · Property law
Wills and trusts
Criminal law  · Evidence

Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate and can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability. Image File history File links Scale_of_justice. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... In law, negligence is a type of tort or delict that can be either criminal or civil in nature. ... Negligent hiring is a cause of action in tort law that arises where one party is held liable for negligence because they placed another party in a position of authority or responsibility, and an injury resulted because of this placement. ... Negligent entrustment is a cause of action in tort law that arises where one party (the entrustor) is held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party (the entrustee) with a dangerous instrumentality, and the entrusted party caused injury to a third party with that instrumentality. ... In law, malpractice is type of tort in which the misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance of a professional under a duty to act fails to follow generally accepted professional standards. ... The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial legal theory and is not accepted in many United States jurisdictions. ... In law, a duty of care is the legal requirement that a person exercise a reasonable standard of care to prevent injury of others. ... In tort law, the standard of care is the degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care. ... In the law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held the cause of that injury. ... Res ipsa loquitur is a legal term from the Latin meaning literally, The thing speaks for itself. The doctrine is applied to claims which, as a matter of law, do not have to be explained beyond the obvious facts. ... In the United States, the calculus of negligence or learned hand rule is a term coined by Judge Learned Hand and describes a process for determining whether a legal duty of care has been breached (see negligence). ... The eggshell skull rule (or thin-skull rule) is a legal doctrine used in both tort law and criminal law that holds an individual liable for all consequences resulting from their activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers unusual damages due to a pre... Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children, who are unable to appreciate the... The rescue doctrine of the law of torts holds that, where a tortfeasor creates a circumstance that places the tort victim in danger, the tortfeasor is liable not only for the harm caused to the victim, but also the harm caused to any person injured in an effort to rescue... A duty to rescue is a concept in the law of torts that arises in a narrow number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. ... Comparative responsibility is a doctrine of tort law that compares the fault of each party in a law suit for a single injury. ... In the law of torts, property, and criminal law a trespasser is a person who is trespassing on a property, that is, without the permission of the owner. ... A licensee is a term used in the law of torts to describe a person who is on the property of another, despite the fact that the property is not open to the general public, because the owner of the property has allowed the licensee to enter. ... An invitee is a term used in the law of torts to describe a person who is on the property of another because that property owner has chosen to hold the property open to some portion of the general public, because the owner of the property has allowed the licensee... Contributory negligence is a common law defence to a claim or action in tort. ... The last clear chance is a doctrine in the law of torts that is employed in contributory negligence jurisdictions. ... Comparative negligence is a system of apportioning recovery for a tort based on a comparison of the plaintiffs negligence with the defendants. ... This is a defense in the law of torts. ... An intervening cause is a potential defense to the tort of negligence, if it is an unforseeable, and therefore superseding intervening cause, rather than a foreseeable intervening cause. ... Strict liability is a legal doctrine in tort law that makes a person responsible for the damages caused by their actions regardless of culpability (fault) or mens rea. ... An ultrahazardous activity in the common law of torts is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries caused to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others... Product liability encompasses a number of legal claims that allow an injured party to recover financial compensation from the manufacturer or seller of a product. ... Nuisance is a common law tort. ... A contract is a promise or an agreement that is enforced or recognized by the law. ... Property law is the area of law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property (land as distinct from personal or movable possessions) and in personal property, within the common law legal system. ... In the common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the testator) regulates the rights of others over his property or family after death. ... The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of law which governs the management of personal affairs and the disposition of property of an individual in anticipation and the event of such persons incapacity or death, also known as the law of successions in civil law. ... Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses. ... The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ... Strict liability is a legal doctrine in tort law that makes a person responsible for the damages caused by their actions regardless of culpability (fault) or mens rea. ... Secondary liability arises when one party is held legally responsible for the actions of another party. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... Agency is an area of law dealing with a contractual or quasi-contractual relationship between at least two parties in which one, the principal, authorizes the other, the agent, to represent her or his legal interests and to perform legal acts that sometimes bind the principal. ... Respondeat superior, Latin for let the master answer, is a legal doctrine which states that an employer is responsible for employee actions performed within the course of the employment. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ...

Employers' liability

Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. For an act to be considered within the course of employment it must either be authorised or be so connected with an authorised act that it can be considered a mode, though an improper mode, of performing it. An employer will not be held liable if it is shown that the employee had gone on a "frolic and detour", wherein the employee was acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business. Neither, generally, will an employer be held liable for assault or battery committed by employees, unless the use of force was part of their employment (e.g. police officers, nightclub bouncers), or they were in a field likely to create friction with persons they encountered (e.g. car re-possessors). However, the employer of an independent contractor is not held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of the contractor, except where the contractor injures someone to whom the employer owes a non-delegable duty of care, such as where the employer is a school authority and the injured party a pupil. Respondeat superior, Latin for let the master answer, is a legal doctrine which states that an employer is responsible for employee actions performed within the course of the employment. ... At common law, battery is the tort of intentionally (or in Australia negligently) and voluntarily touching another person without lawful excuse or justification. ... An independent contractor is a person or business which provides goods or services to another entity under terms specified in a contract. ...

Employers are also liable under the common law principle represented in the Latin phrase, "qui facit per alium facit per se", i.e. the one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests and it is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability in which one person is held liable in Criminal Law or Tort for the acts or omissions of another.

Principals' liability

The owner of an automobile can be held vicariously liable for negligence committed by a person to whom the car has been loaned, as if the owner was a principal and the driver his or her agent, if the driver is using the car primarily for the purpose of performing a task for the owner. Courts have been reluctant to extend this liability to the owners of other kinds of chattel. For example, the owner of a plane will not be vicariously liable for the actions of a pilot to whom he or she has lent it to perform the owner's purpose.

Parental liability

In the United States, the question of parental responsibility generally and the issue of parental vicariously liability for the torts of their children is evolving. What is clear is that parents can be held liable for their own negligent acts, such as failure to supervise a child, or failure to keep a dangerous instrument such as a handgun outside the reach of their children. In Canada and the United States, the term parental responsibility refers to the potential or actual liability that may be incurred by parents for the behaviour of their children. ... A handgun is a firearm small enough to be carried and used in one hand. ...

The liability of corporations in tort

In English law, a corporation can only act through its employees and agents so it is necessary to decide in which circumstances the law of agency or vicarous liability will apply to hold the corporation liable in tort for the frauds of its directors or senior officers. If liability for the particular tort requires a state of mind, then to be liable, the director or senior officer must have that state of mind and it must 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 their authority but unknown to the directors, used company funds to acquire some shares. The question was whether the company knew, or ought to have known that it had acquired those shares. The Privy Council held that it did. Whether by virtue of their actual or ostensible authority as agents acting within their authority (see Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716) or as employees acting in the course of their employment (see Armagas Limited v Mundogas S.A. [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 behalf and not just on behalf of the company. English law is a formal term of art that describes the law for the time being in force in England and Wales. ... A corporation is a legal person which, while being composed of natural persons, exists completely separately from them. ... A privy council is a body that advises the head of state of a nation, especially in a monarchy. ...

So if a director or officer is expressly authorised to make representations 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 will be liable even though the particular representation was an improper way of doing what he was authorised to do. The extent of authority is a question fact and is significantly 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 Furnishing Fabrics Limited [1971] 2 QB 711, a company secretary fraudulently hired cars for his own use without the knowledge of the managing director. A company secretary routinely enters into contracts in the company's name and has administrative responsibities that would give apparent authority to hire cars. Hence, the company was liable.

References

Department of Trade & Industry. Company Law Review: Attribution of Liability [1]