Vicarious Liability - Coursework Example

Vicarious Liability Student’s Name Institution of Learning Vicarious liability Introduction Vicarious liability refers to the legal responsibilities taken for the actions of another. That is, if a law finds X responsible for the actions of Y, the liability of X is said to be vicarious. In the criminal law connection, the term is utilized as a part of distinctive courses by analysts and courts. It might be planned to allude just to cases that considers X in charge of the behavior of Y in view of the relationship among X and Y. In other occasions the term can be used in describing X, having liability for the demeanor of Y despite the fact that X was not liable. Vicarious liability can also be used to define all the situations where X is held criminally liable for the conduct of Y (Dressler, 2002). In another perspective, vicarious liability can be referred to as the mechanism that allows a claimant to be able to fix someone not necessarly indigent actor. The vicarious liability rules seems as if they breach the fundamental rights of innocent parties whereby they can be held responsible for the actions done by guilty parties. The purpose of this easy is to offer a comprehensive justification of the doctrine (edge-law, 2015). The first part will outline the general aspects of vicarious liability, followed by the various occasions that vicarious liability has been applied and then reflection with the modern world. Vicarious liability cannot be fully regarded as a tort. However, it is a principle by which courts have managed to determine that someone else should be held responsible for the wrongs done by others. The method has its conceptions regarding capability that stems right from control under the master and servant rules, which have long been modernized. The principle major thrust is that one party (the employer) is held responsible for the torts of another (employee).Normally; the courts have obliged law as to when such kind of vicarious liability arises. The major rule in this case is that the cases of tort must take place in the course of employment. The major rule for this situation is that the instances of tort must occur over the span of business. In various cases the relationship nature between the representative and business are promptly settled, however, in different events the position is not completely clear (edge-law, 2015). As a result, the courts have developed a cycle of test such as the control and economic reality test that aids in determining the fault party. The control test examines the extent and nature of control that an employee has over a situation. On the other hand, the economic reality test tries to asses whether all relevant conditions have been satisfied fully if the fault part has to be indentified as an employee. For instance, a party agreement to provide skills for a salary, a degree of control is with the employer, and other contract aspects are consistent with its being a service contract (Michaud, 2011). Enterprise liability Harm may take place as result of a business' or strategies. In such a case a court may hold that business liable for the damages. Damages of this nature can include; property, slander or physical injuries. Enterprise liability is one of numerous types that are applicable to a business, for example, fault, and tort. Enterprise liability in a legal doctrine it means that an organization can be held responsible practices in which they shared. For instance, if Company X is a small firm in a certain industry, then it happens that someone prosecutes that entire industry, it is likely that numerous other small firms in the industry added to the problem Vicarious liability cases Vicarious liability has resulted from various actions careless acts being one of them. This happens when an employee acts carelessly resulting into a serious property damage or loss of life. For instance case between century insurance and Northern Ireland Road transport board. In this case, tanker driver light a cigarette leading into an explosion while refueling a petrol tanker. Negligence of employees has also resulted into vicarious liability. The liability has not been held up by courts once it does not rise in occasions where the criminal acts are not within the course of employment. That is activates that are clearly defined to lie outside of the employment scope do not evoke vicarious liability (edge-law, 2015). Likewise, liability denial by courts has been easy among courts in cases where employees’ actions are contrary to expressing orders from their employers. Having put into thought the rule way of vicarious liability it is vital to turn to the parts of whether the tenet still has a position in the present day lawful framework. The liability is seen to have spilled out of the idea that as an employer having control over his or her representatives, acts as an acknowledgement to assume up the liability for their activities including their offenses. Conventionally, the significant concern from the law of tort is on deficiency and culpability; however, the courts look to support it making the employer responsible for their representatives' torts. The master and servant law ought to have led to the view that an employer gained from the work done by his or her employee and should be responsible. The question that rises here is whether in today understands of the present employment law, could it spawn such a concept. The concept also contradicts the basic fault principles and appears at odds with other universal doctrines that are intended to institute liability (Becker, & Becker, 2001). The laws under the vicarious liability are more to do with the master and servant origins than other legal principles of finding the fault party. This makes the mechanisms and rules to be seen as inconsistent and artificial. The view can also be exacerbated when related to the contemporary employment rules that have developed because of parliament's participation in the formation of statutory provision and the growth of universal law principles. These laws on occasion looks as if they are encouraging legal defenses and arguments, for example, in situations where an employer can run away liability in case it can be revealed that the employee went out on a cavort of his or her own (Pieth, & Ivory,2011). In the perspective of practice, it is difficult to see the decency of such situations when differentiated to those where the worker still get on leading the pack of an activity. This ought to happen regardless of the possibility that the reasoning the behavior had been prohibited by his or her employer circumstance still brought about an executive being found liable. Control theory Control theory view is that people desist from deviant behavior as a result of diversified factors that have control on their instincts to break social values. The theory tries to explain why people do not act on aberrant impulses. Some of the known controls include; conscience, and motivation towards success. The non-deviant actions are connected to social bonds and socialization. Deep pocket argument Vicarious liability is a situation where a person is held responsible for torts committed by another person. This liability is essentially an issue of public strategy and social convenience. From a deep pocket argument view an employer stands a better chance financially than his employees, thus they have an increased ability to meet the cost of claims. The theory asserts that employers do not only have a lot of money they also have insurance and can be able to distribute the losses they incur to customers by hiking product prices. Creation of risk This involves imposing liability on an individual on the basis of the kind and type of risk that was undertaken .That is in vicarious liability the real cause of injuries has to be fully linked with work place or rather must occur in the course of one’s employment. The creation of risk is the actual cause of an injury Pros of vicarious liability Financial benefits-a person who files a claim against an employer stands a better chance of being compensated because employers are more financially able to pay such assertions equated to an employee (deep pocket argument). It is easy to distribute loses; employers after paying claims can be able to recover money through price increment. Employers are held responsible for their employee's faults- This is an advantage in that employers instills strict instructions and train their employees to conduct themselves well thus reducing cases of accidents in work places. Conclusion The criminal law does not support the vicarious liability in the setting of its definition. Generally, everybody is held responsible for his or her own actions and not the actions of others. This general law against vicarious liability contains some exceptions the code that one is illegally responsible only for one's own events has sizeable force, manipulating both legislation, as well as, judicial decisions. However, on balance, there are arguments that are against and for vicarious liability, but because of the comprehensive explanation in this easy one may doubt whether argument on whether there is a visible wrong that necessitates the attention of Parliament or law restructuring bodies. The law main concern is the identification of some who can be held responsible for a particular fault. In addition, there are many theories that have been developed to justify this doctrine, but all these perhaps demonstrate that the notion is not out of control and the significance of policy-based decisions in the law is still contained. Therefore, following the fact that vicarious liability permits this to take place and provides a remedy, it is hard to perceive how it can be disregarded even with its faults. References Becker, L. C., & Becker, C. B. (2001). Encyclopedia of ethics. New York: Routledge. Dressler, J. (2002). Encyclopedia of crime & justice. New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Michaud, H. J. (2011). Tort law: Concepts and applications. Upper Saddle River, N.J Prentice Hall. Pieth, M., & Ivory, R. (2011). Corporate Criminal Liability: Emergence, Convergence, and Risk. Dordrecht: Springer. Read More