THE CORPORATE GROUP: SYSTEM, DESIGN AND RESPONSIBILITY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (3) ◽  
pp. 581-612
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
System Design ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Causal Influence ◽  
Group System ◽  
Corporate Group ◽  
Liability Claims

AbstractLungowe v Vedanta Resources plc presages more liberal criteria for determining when a parent company owes a duty of care to third parties injured by subsidiary activities. It invokes systems language and points to potential parent company liability for omissions in managing the group. This article develops these ideas. It portrays the corporate group in systems-managerial terms. The parent creates group-wide structures and deploys management strategies and integrating mechanisms that facilitate achievement of its purposes. It has a substantial causal influence upon subsidiary acts and omissions. Prima facie the parent cannot avoid extended liability claims by hiding behind the “pure omissions” rule.

Directors' Liability in Negligence – Challenging the "Elements of the Tort" Approach

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 485
Author(s):  
Victoria Stace
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Constructive Approach ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Threshold Test

This article suggests that the "elements of the tort" approach to directors' liability in negligence to third parties should be discontinued on the basis that assumption of responsibility as a threshold test is not an element of the tort of negligence or negligent misstatement and a more constructive approach would be to address the policy issues associated with imposing liability on directors as part of the two-stage duty of care inquiry.

3. Special duty problems: omissions and acts of third parties

2019 ◽  
pp. 49-59
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Common ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter discusses the problem of when a duty of care arises in respect of negligent omissions, or for the actions of a third party. The common law takes the view that it would be too great a burden to impose liability upon a person for a mere omission, or for the actions of others. Despite this, duties can in fact be imposed in various ways, all of which focus on the reliance of the claimant upon the defendant. This can come about either by the previous conduct of the defendant, which induces reliance by the claimant that the defendant will continue to act in that way, or by reliance which comes out of a relationship of dependence between the parties. As regards third parties, a duty may arise where the defendant has control over or responsibility for the third party’s actions.

4. Special duty problems: omissions and acts of third parties

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter examines two separate but closely linked concepts of liability for omissions and for the actions of third parties. The first section considers when and how the courts have found that a duty of care should be owed by defendants when the harm was the result of their omission, and the second explores the situations when a defendant may owe a duty in relation to the action(s) of a third party.

Tort Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Invasion Of Privacy ◽  
Statutory Duty

Tort Law encourages the reader to understand, engage with, and critically reflect upon tort law. The book contains five parts. Part I, which is about the tort of negligence, looks at duty of care, omissions, acts of third parties, psychiatric harm, economic loss, breach, causation and remoteness, and defences to negligence. Part II considers occupiers’, product and employers’ liability and breach of statutory duty. Part III looks at personal torts and explains trespass to the person, defamation and the invasion of privacy. Part IV concerns land torts and Part V looks at liability (including vicarious liability), damages and limitations.

Loyalty and Disclosure in Legal Ethics

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-107
Author(s):  
Benjamin C Zipursky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Financial Fraud ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Legal Ethics ◽  
Duty Of Loyalty ◽  
Role Based ◽  
Government Institution

Abstract: As fiduciaries, lawyers owe duties of loyalty to their clients, and such duties are widely understood to entail strong duties of confidentiality. This article addresses the question of whether loyalty-based duties of confidentiality preclude the legal system from imposing on lawyers duties to disclose that their clients have been engaging in financial fraud. It distinguishes two possible bases for such duties of disclosure: alleged duties of care to investors who will suffer financial harm if these frauds are not revealed, and legislative mandates requiring lawyers to report evidence of legal violations to a government institution. The latter—driven by a “gatekeeping” rationale, and illustrated here by a (failed) proposal of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission—is different in substance and structure from the former, “duty-of-care” rationale. The article argues that, while there may be good arguments based on a lawyer’s role-based duty of loyalty to a reject a duty-of-care based rationale for disclosure duties, these arguments do not defeat the gatekeeping, legislative-mandate rationales for disclosure duties. While a stringent duty of loyalty to a client may indeed conflict with the structure of duties of care to third parties, it need not conflict with a positive mandate to report legal violations.

scholarly journals Striking a balance: resolving conflicts between the duty of confidentiality and duties to third parties in genetics

Legal Studies ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 645-665
Author(s):  
Naomi Hawkins ◽  
Timon Hughes-Davies
Keyword(s):  
Family Member ◽  
Genetic Information ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Healthcare Practitioner ◽  
Party Family

AbstractGenetic information is relevant not only to the patient, but also to their family. Where a patient refuses to share that information with family members, then their legal rights may conflict. This paper focuses on that conflict between the rights of individuals and the rights of third parties. We first examine the nature of the duty of confidence as it applies in these circumstances, and the extent to which it can appropriately accommodate the familial nature of genetic information. We then consider the situations in which a healthcare practitioner might owe a third-party family member a tortious duty of care. We conclude that in most cases, there will be no duty owed to third parties, but that in certain limited circumstances, a duty of care should arise.

scholarly journals Freedom of Expression, Secularism and Defamation of Religion: The Case of Charlie Hebdo

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 276
Author(s):  
Peonidis
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Terrorist Attack ◽  
Religious Faith ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Basic Rights ◽  
Legal Sanctions ◽  
Religious Criticism ◽  
Charlie Hebdo

I argue that under normal circumstances a state that is liberal and secular should not use its legal apparatus to suppress the publication of cartoons like those that triggered the deadly terrorist attack on the premises of Charlie Hebdo in 2015, if it is determined to abide by its core values. These values, which include religious neutrality, religious freedom, and unhindered freedom of criticism, imply that individual citizens are prima facie legally free to express their disapproval of particular religions or religious faith in general, through any non-violent means they consider appropriate, including parody and ridicule. This idea is open to various objections. Those focusing on the protection of religion as such can be easily dismissed, but the charge that defamation of religion causes offence to believers has to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, I defend the view that we need something stronger than taking offense to justifiably ban harsh religious criticism. In particular, I argue that, if the above sort of criticism prevents its recipients from exercising their basic rights or it incites third parties to engage in criminal activities against the above individuals, it should be subject to legal sanctions. However, this is not the case with the cartoons that appeared in Charlie Hebdo, since, as far as I can tell, no basic rights of French Muslims were violated, and no violent actions were committed against them as a result of their publication.

Die Haftung der Muttergesellschaft und ihres Vorstands für Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Konzern

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Nordhues
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Multinational Companies ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
The Board Of Directors

Given the increasing number of human rights violations by multinational companies, the call for liability of western companies is growing louder and louder. The question whether such liability already exists de lege lata has so far been answered only fragmentarily. With her paper on the liability of multinational companies for human rights violations, the author fills this gap. The author not only investigates the liability of a parent company, but also examines whether compliance duties of the board of directors comprise a group-wide obligation to prevent human rights violations. While an explicit implementation of such duty of care has repeatedly been considered, but not yet realised, in Germany, the French legislator has already implemented an obligation to monitor compliance with human rights. Based on this act, the author examines how the liability of multinational companies could be structured de lege ferenda.

Kidner's Casebook on Torts

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Product Liability ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Breach Of Duty

Kidner’s Casebook on Torts provides a comprehensive, portable library of the leading cases in the field. It presents a wide range of carefully edited extracts, which illustrate the essence and reasoning behind each decision made. Concise author commentary focuses the reader on the key elements within the extracts. Statutory materials are also included where they are necessary to understand the subject. The book examines the tort of negligence including chapters on the basic principles of duty of care, omissions and acts of third parties, the liability of public bodies, psychiatric harm, economic loss, breach of duty, causation and remoteness of damage and defences. It goes on to consider three special liability regimes—occupiers’ liability, product liability and breach of statutory duty—before turning to discussion of the personal torts and land torts. It concludes with chapters on vicarious liability and damages.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document