Limitations of Vicarious Liability - Example

Vicarious liability Name Institution TABLE OF CONTENTSY Contents YIntroducti Enterprise liability 3 Control theory 4 The deep pocket argument 4 Creation of risks 5 Limitations of vicarious liability 5 Principle of loss of distribution 6 Justification today 6 Case study 6 Conclusion 6 References 7 Introduction 5 Enterprise Liability 5 Control Theory 6 The Deep Pocket Argument 6 Creation of Risks 7 Limitations of Vicarious Liability 7 Principle of Loss of Distribution 8 Justification Today 8 Case Study 8 Conclusion 9 Vicarious Liability Introduction Vicarious liability refers to the tort doctrine that holds one person responsible to upon failures of a different person, whereby both have close relations. It may include liability of an employer for the deeds and omissions of the staff, so long as it is evident that the action occurred during their employment period (Spindler, 2011). It is a legal doctrine that includes the assigning of liability for persons who did not carry out any injury but have specific legal relations to the persons who act neglectfully. The relation may also include parent and child, husband and wife, and vehicle owner and driver. The main argument of this paper is that vicarious liability is both ethically and legally justifiable. The paper will discuss legal and ethical justifications for the doctrine of vicarious liability. The justifications that will be discussed in this paper include enterprise liability, control theory, the deep pocket argument, principle of loss of distribution, and the creation of risks. Enterprise Liability When harm occurs from an organization’s products, policies, and deeds, legal agencies may hold the organization responsible for such harm which may include physical and property harm. The liability holds that distinct business entities may be held accountable for practices or deeds that were carried out jointly (Edge Law, 2015). For instance, if a certain company is a small enterprise in a given industry, and the industry gets sued, there are other small enterprises that may have made contribution to the crisis. If a plaintiff experiences problems as a result of industry-wide actions, all the enterprises within that industry, inclusive of company A will befall defendants in the court case. If the case is justified, jurisdiction would hold all these enterprises jointly responsible. Enterprise liability is a tort law that justifies the vicarious liability and it is utilized in a variety of case types (Bell, 2013). A worker may use the enterprise liability to sue in an occasion whereby he suffered health complications due to work conditions of a certain company; though she do not have evidence that the conditions contributed to the complications. Also, under this liability, an employer is responsible for harm that may result from the deeds of the employees. Control Theory Control theory emphasizes how weak ties amid individuals and the society result to deviation and people go against customs. It argues that people with weak ties get involved criminal activity in search of benefits and after gaining things of personal interest. In this case, strong ties make deviant behavior more costly. Such acts seem striking to people but social ties prohibit them from carrying out such activities. Deviant behavior results from widespread exposure to various social circumstances whereby people develop conduct that attract them to stop conforming to societal customs. Social theory utilizes social ties to direct people from opting for the striking deviant behavior (Chamallas, 2014). Humans make choices regarding on the benefits associated with each choice. For instance, majority of people do not like work but do so due the associated benefits. The Deep Pocket Argument Deep pocket refers to extensive fiscal assets and resources. It is majorly utilized to refer to the gig organizations as well as wealthy persons. In a court scenario, deep pockets are in most cases the aimed defendant, despite the fact that the ethical responsibility is held by another individual because deep pockets can afford to make verdict payments. For instance, a lawyer may sue the producer of a certain product instead of the vender because the producer is the deep pocket. It means that the deep pocket has extensive wealth compared to the vendor, to recompense the victims. Deep pocket argument defends the vicarious liability and it is the ideology arguing that a menace should be held by an individual who is in a reasonably proper situation to deal with it (Morgan, 2012). It is achievable through spread of the risk to a numerous risk holders or passing it to an individual who is somewhat risk neutral. Referring to the deep pocket argument in the case of vicarious liability, liability is basically a case of public policy and societal convenience as employers would be essentially in a better fiscal position than the staff in that they can meet the expenditure of the problem (Neyers, 2005). The argument holds that companies hold insurance and they are able to share out expenses to the consumers by raising the cost of their goods and services. Creation of Risks In many cases, the defendant may be incapable to meet the losses associated with a certain action. There are various legal solutions for risk reduction; one of which include the adoption of vicarious liability (“Justification of Vicarious Liability,” 2011). If there is an additional party with some level of authority over the action, they are held responsible and the risk is distributed. However, assumption of risk refers to legal tort which risk minimizes petitioner’s right to recovery against ignorance of the accused. If the defendant can present evidence that the plaintiff carried out an offensive action deliberately and intentionally. Limitations of Vicarious Liability Vicarious liability is applicable in various circumstances. For instance, the employer cannot be held responsible if the employee gets involved in assault and use of force. The vicarious liability increases expenses and burdens to the legal system. This occurs in that it raises the number of defendants taking part in a problem raised causing a lot of complications to a lawsuit. The liability lacks fairness and may overburden the employers (Bell, 2013). Principle of Loss of Distribution In most cases whereby employers are held responsible for the actions of the employees, they rarely pay for the losses with money directly from their pockets. The expense encountered is distributed across a huge segment of the society for an extended period of time (‘Justification of Vicarious Liability,’ 2011). Justification Today Vicarious liability is a vital feature in today’s legal systems. Majority of organizations take the responsibility of the problems linked to their employees (Morgan, 2012). The law holds principals liability for losses linked to their agents, vehicle owners are held responsible on the losses associated with these they give authority over their vehicles, and parents on the actions of their children. The application of vicarious liability is multifaceted and varies across states; however, the common principle is that the higher the authority of one party over the other, the grater the chances that the higher party would be held responsible over the actions of the other. Case Study John and his 9 months son went to a recreational park and took a boat ride in which there were 20 clients with a single employee rowing the boat. The employee told the clients that he could sway the boat in an upward motion to create a more adventurous experience. As he swayed the boat, the clients objected but he did not stop his action since the boat was free-floating and not on track. Hence, the boat overturned throwing everybody into the water including John and his son. In such a case, the employee is responsible for negligence since his actions were beyond the expectations of the park. Negligence in hiring and supervision holds the company liable under the vicarious tort liability (Bell, 2013). Conclusion The main argument of this paper is that vicarious liability is both ethically and legally justifiable. Some of the justifications addressed in the paper include enterprise liability, control theory, the deep pocket argument, the creation of risks, and principle of loss of distribution. The idea behind vicarious liability is multifaceted because it involves protection of the victim so as to acquire reasonable compensation but at the same time protecting the employer from unfair burdens form its employees. Nevertheless, it plays a significant role in maintenance of safety standards. References Bell, J. (2013). The Basis of Vicarious Liability. The Cambridge Law Journal, 72(01), 17-20. Chamallas, M. (2014). Vicarious Liability in Torts: The Sex Exception. Valparaiso University Law Review, 48(133). Edge Law. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2015, from http://edge-law.blogspot.ae/2011/01/is-concept-of-vicarious-liability-out.html Justification of Vicarious Liability. (2011, February 23). Retrieved April 10, 2015, from http://lex-warrier.in/2011/02/justification-of-vicarious-liability/ Morgan, P. (2012). Recasting vicarious liability. The Cambridge Law Journal, 71(03), 615-650. Murray, S. (2012). The extent of an employer's vicarious liability when an employee act within the scope of employment/by Shaun Murray (Doctoral dissertation, North-West University). Neyers, J. W. A. (2005). Theory of Vicarious Liability. Alberta Law Review, 43, 287. Spindler, J. C. (2011). Vicarious liability for bad corporate governance: Are we wrong about 10b-5?. American law and economics review, 13(2), 359-401. Read More