The Application of Civil Law - Assignment Example

The Application of Civil Law Introduction Vicarious liability generally applies to employer relationship. The Principle is based on common law and the law of torts. It recognizes that the employer is generally responsible for the acts of the employer. The employee does the work on behalf of the employer. QUESTION 1 Advise Daisy The law from long a go holds the employer responsible. This is true even when the act is unauthorized or when it is an unlawful act. (Lester and Ors v Hesley Hall Ltd 2001) This landmark case guarantees the employer as fully liable. The simple test is to establish the damage and injury. To establish it was caused by the assets of the employer. The term assets will include the efforts of the worker. In technical accounting language an asset is that which will benefit the business in the future. The employee is there for the benefit of the business. A business also has liabilities. In accounting language this means having to meet or pay a value in the future. Travelline Ltd is required to make provisions for the possible wrongs of its employees. It is also required to prevent them. The law does not say try to prevent them. But the law requires the employer to prevent them. Clearly the employer failed to prevent the damage and loss to the person. In deciding whether an employer is vicariously liable for wrongs done by an employee the traditional test of considering whether the act is "a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master" is not entirely apt in cases of intentional wrongs. The correct test is to concentrate on the relative closeness of the connection between the nature of the employment and the particular wrong and to ask whether looking at the matter in the round it is just and reasonable to hold the employers vicariously liable (Bernard v The Attorney General of Jamaica 2004). The workers were on duty. The work performed was closely related to the official duties. They were responsible at the time for the safe operation of the bus for the benefit of the employer. (Dubai Aluminum Co Ltd. v Salaam 2002). The employee could have used his ability to save a life or avoid an accident. Such would have been praised by the company. The Travelline Ltd, as the employer, is fully liable for the damages in these cases. The House of Lords confirmed that questions relating to liability of an employer for wrongs committed by an employee (ie "vicarious liability") do not depend on whether the employee has specific authority to do the particular act which constitutes the wrong but rather on whether or not he has general authority to do acts of that kind.. It is clear the workers were acting on behalf of Travelline Ltd. Yes, there is a claim on the basis of vicarious liability. The law recognizes strict liability as it relates to employer employee relationships. In this case the worker was on duty. The employer Travelline Ltd. benefits from the actions of the employee. The employer is therefore responsible for the wrongful actions of the employee. The employer generally has greater financial resources. They are therefore expected to pay. The assets of the employer were involved in the loss. Daisy had no relationship with the company. The company maliciously intruded into her life. In the process it caused her loss of an asset and it caused personal loss. Daisy should be therefore be given restitution for the loss. In addition there should be provision for punitive damages. I will advise daisy that the bus company Traveline Ltd. is fully liable. The bus is owned by the company. The property being the bus has caused the damages. The bus has been operated by the employee. The employee was actually working for the bus company at the time of the accident (Hall, M. 2000). QUESTION 2 Advise William All the cases sighted above also apply in this case. Yes, there is a claim on the basis of vicarious liability. The law recognizes strict liability as it relates to employer employee relationships. In this case the worker was on duty. The employer Travelline Ltd. benefits from the actions of the employee. The employer is therefore responsible for the wrongful actions of the employee. The famous landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson, the claimant consumed part of a drink containing a decomposed snail while in a public place. In a similar fashion, William suffered assault. He also suffered assault in public. The employer generally has greater financial resources. They are therefore expected to pay. The assets of the employer were involved in the loss. Yes, there is a claim on the basis of vicarious liability. The law recognizes strict liability as it relates to employer employee relationships. In this case the worker was on duty. The employer Travelline Ltd. benefits from the actions of the employee. The employer is therefore responsible for the wrongful actions of the employee. I will advise William that the bus company Travelline Ltd. is liable. The bus is owned by the company. The property being the bus has caused the damages. The bus has been operated by the employee. The employee was actually working for the bus company at the time of the accident. First there is a crime committed against William. This means the law of the governing authority has been broken. Punishment of such an action is enforced by police power. This is considered an act against the wider society and not just involving the immediate persons involved. Crime is the breaking of a rule that is designed to have an orderly society. The punishment is determined by that law code. In some cases the punishment is imprisonment. In others it is a fine of money to be paid to the government. In some cases there is a combination of the two forms of punishment. In some cases the government in its enforcement process may require some form of rehabilitation activity from the perpetrator. The concept is to ensure that the act will not be repeated. Of course there are no guarantees. In repeat cases the punishment is harsher and harsher. A case for substantial damages should be filed against the bus company. This is a case of negligence. It is the duty of the bus company as an employer to ensure that William suffer no harm while using the bus service (Jenkins, A. 2009). It is obvious that the bus company failed to do so. The injuries and the witnesses to the incident is adequate proof that William suffered loss, pain and suffering and embarrassment as a result of the action of the employee. The employee did the violent act while in the official capacity as an agent of the bus company. The bus company is required to hold to a duty of care (Donoghue v Stevenson). The concept of agent principal can be easily applied. There is therefore the liability of negligence. It is recognized that there is a general understanding that there is such a concept of moral wrong doing. Whenever this occurs the perpetrator is required to pay. William has been injured. The employer is responsible. The act or omission of an act should not in any way cause injury to the neighbor. A case can be made that the employer failed to protect the neighbor or customer from undue harm. William was using the product or service as offered and provided by the bus company. The customer does not even seem to know of the existence of the dangerous employee. The indication will indicate the concept of product liability. The customer was seeking to use the product or service of the company. . William must seek to be fully reimbursed for all medical costs incurred. In addition there should be restitution for all lost income during the period of treatment and recovery. Here should be test done to establish the likely hood of future effects of the incident. The customer should seek to have provision for a reasonable time for restitution for future losses. This would be based on expert testimony as to the medical and psychological effects in to the future. William has a case of assault and battery. In addition he has suffered pain and suffering. He has also suffered embarrassment. This head lock was employed by the employee of the bus company. The incident occurred in the course of duty. Of course the bus is the property of the bus company. QUESTION 3 Employer Vicarious Liability The employer should have screened the workers as to personality types (Liability of Athletes…1993). If this was not done there is further increase in money damages. It would be important to seek out the training manual and daily briefings of the supervisory staff. This would indicate the extent to which the employer has been seeking to remind workers not to engage in such activity. If this was not adequately done then there could be increased money damages for negligence The concept is called strict secondary liability. The employer is considered the third party. In addition the employer is considered to have the right, responsibility and duty to control the acts of the employee. The principle is established in common law and in tort law. One may refer to the 1972 act. This act seeks to specifically address the matter of health and safety and welfare in the work place. These are further recognized as the country joined the European Union. Health is important. Safety is important. Welfare is important. The employer is responsible for each of these three in the work place. This is recognized under a multidisciplinary approach called occupational safety and health. This means the law expects the employer to provide a safe environment for the worker. The law goes further. It is done by legislation and by common law. It clearly shows the employer is responsible for secondary effects. Secondary effects would be effects on co-workers, family members, customers, suppliers and the other members of the community. This can be summed up to say that the employer, in this case the corporation is expected to be seen and be actually a good corporate citizen. In all cases the employer has to provide the highest means of promoting health and safety in the work place for all those who might be affected. The effect must include acts and omissions. It must be emphasize that it is the highest standards required and not the lowest or minimal standard that meets the requirements of the law. A corporation is a separate legal person. This can be an employer. The corporation can be sued or it can sue in its own name. It is obvious that persons must act on behalf of the corporation. Conclusion There must be an identifiable event or action. The action results in a loss. The loss is called damages. Someone is responsible for the act. There is the need to establish ownership. This will be ownership of resources of the possible benefits. Then there is redress under civil law. References Hall, M. (2000, May). After Waterhouse: vicarious liability and the tort of institutional abuse. Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 22(2), 159-173. Retrieved August 19, 2009, doi:10.1080/01418030050077644 Jenkins, A. (2009, May). The Bermuda Islands blow ‘sweet & sour’ on employers’ liability for Internet libel. Computer Law & Security Report, 25(3), 280-284. Retrieved August 19, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2009.03.006 Liability of Athletes and Owners to Spectators. (1993, September). Journal of Sport Management, Retrieved August 19, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database Read More