Vicarious liability can only be imposed if it is proved that the employee was acting “in the course of employment.” This criteria is essential, and requires a clear connection between the employment duties and the employee’s acts complained of. As such, most employer’s will be insured in order to avoid such liability. In addition, in order to establish vicarious liability, it is necessary to show that an employee was employed under a contract of service, or in the case of an independent contractor, a contract for services. English law has also established that an employer can be held vicariously liable for a breach of statutory duty by
City/County government, State government, and federal government. Most attention is drawn towards the federal government. Three branches of government were thought out by four people, Locke, Spinoza, Blackstone, and Montesquiueu. A legislative branch, also known as Congress, an Executive branch, which in basic form is the President, a Judicial branch, also known as Supreme Court, are the branches of the federal government, and between the levels of government, nation and state. The three branches of U.S. government are all supported by the U.S. Constitution.
It is important to the criminal justice system because a client should always have adequate representation. The issues that surround attorney-client privilege also make it very important to the court system. Some of the issues that exist because of the complexity of privilege are mainly questions such as in what instances should an attorney break that privilege, what if a client admits guilt of a crime, what about a client that conveys their intent to commit a crime. Admitting guilt of a crime that has already occurred is considered privileged information, however, a client that conveys their intent to commit a crime is not covered under the attorney-client privilege. It is an attorney’s obligation, in fact, to break that attorney-client privilege in order to prevent future harm (Meyer & Grant, 2003).
The Elastic Clause states that Congress shall have the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carting into execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof (Angel&Gerberg). Jefferson as a strict constructionist believed that this would give Congress unlimited power. The relevance of constitution interpretation in our time is that when the constitution was written they could not see into our time the 21st century and therefore we need interpretation to help with the problems that arise in our
An example of fault being used in the law is the Mens Rea requirement in s.18 OAPA. This requires specific intention, which shows that the D must have been culpable voluntarily. Regarding its role in civil law, it is essential to prove fault in some areas, but not in others. For example proving fault is crucial for a successful claim in negligence. Here, fault is tested in breach, which states that D is at fault if they do not act like the ordinary, sensible individual.
Negligence can be explained as the violation of a legal duty that a person owes to another human being to care for safety of their safekeeping. Where that result in an injury then the injured person has the right to prosecute and may be eligible for compensation. The injured party must prove to the court that the negligence was the result of dereliction of the duty of care and damage to the injured party was sustained. This is negligence. This essay, using a case from my practice, will explore negligence and the issues surrounding consent, analyse the ethical implications and propose possible risk management strategies that would minimise the potential of future negligence in similar situations.
The DRP would not be a complete document without the BCP. The DRP will note how the business’ functional recovery will be performed. The plan will state compartmentalized recovery strategies for specific systems in a step-by-step method. The purpose of the DRP is to provide a documented means of restoring the integrity of the IT systems and provide a measure of protection against human error. If a disaster strikes, the normal operation of the business is suspended and replaced with the operation noted in the DRP.
to what extent can organisations minimise counterproductive or deviant behaviour “A growing body of evidence suggests that when employees feel unfairly treated, they can engage in organizational retaliation – defined as the tendency to ‘make the wrongdoer pay’” Laid off employees can be motivated to engage in retaliation as a way to restore the balance of justice, bring a sense of resolution to the event and help them deal with the strong negative emotions that are typically experienced in response to unfairness perceptions in a layoff pg 1 skarlaci Organizational justice or fairness perceptions have been shown to influence the display of counterproductive work behaviors. Distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice have all been shown to include both counterproductive work behaviors aimed at individuals, such as political deviance and personal aggression; and counterproductive work behaviors aimed at the organization, such as production slowdown and property deviance Personality is a predictor of an employee's proclivity toward counterproductive work behaviors. With regard to the Big Five, conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and openness to experience all predict counterproductive behaviors. When an employee is low in conscientiousness, counterproductive work behaviors related to the organization are more likely to occur. [60][61] Employees who are low in agreeableness will exhibit counterproductive work behaviors related to interpersonal deviant behaviors.
INTRODUCTION Many legal systems are to a greater or lesser extent concerned with the notions of fairness and justice. If a state is going to penalize a person or require that person to pay compensation to another for losses incurred, this imposition of liability will be derived from the idea that those who injure others should take responsibility for their actions. Although some parts of any legal system will have qualities of strict liability, in which the mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused) is immaterial to the result and subsequent liability of the actor, most look to establish liability by showing that the defendant was the cause of the particular injury or loss. Even the youngest children quickly learn that, with varying degrees of probability, consequences flow from physical acts and omissions. The more predictable the outcome, the greater the likelihood that the actor caused the injury or loss intentionally.
THE DOCTRINE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY The doctrine of vicarious liability also known as “master and servant liability” has become well established in English law where it is clearly indicated the circumstances in which it becomes applicable in tort law. The general rule in tort law is that a person committing a tort is personally liable for damage or harm as a result. However there are circumstances where a master/employer is liable for his employee’s wrong as long as it is committed in the course of employment. It isn’t necessary for the employer to have breached any duty owed to the injured party and therefore operates as a strict or no-fault liability. English law has also established that an employer is also vicariously liable for breach of statutory duty by an employee.