9. Employers’ liability and vicarious liability

2021 ◽  
pp. 100-118
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Child Abuse ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Psychological Safety ◽  
Employment Relationship ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Statutory Requirement ◽  
Compulsory Insurance

This chapter discusses both common law and statute on employers’ liability and vicarious liability. Employers’ liability is concerned with the employer’s personal, non-delegable duty in respect of the physical and psychological safety of his employees. This was established in Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English (1938) and is reinforced by the statutory requirement that employers have compulsory insurance. Vicarious liability involves the employer being liable to a third party for the tort of his employee. This must occur in the course of employment, a concept which was redefined in Lister v Hesley Hall (2002). The employment relationship has been re-examined in the light of institutional child abuse cases.

9. Employers’ liability and vicarious liability

2019 ◽  
pp. 99-116
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Child Abuse ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Psychological Safety ◽  
Employment Relationship ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Statutory Requirement ◽  
Compulsory Insurance

This chapter discusses both common law and statute on employers’ liability and vicarious liability. Employers’ liability is concerned with the employer’s personal, non-delegable duty in respect of the physical and psychological safety of his employees. This was established in Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English (1938) and is reinforced by the statutory requirement that employers have compulsory insurance. Vicarious liability involves the employer being liable to a third party for the tort of his employee. This must occur in the course of employment, a concept which was redefined in Lister v Hesley Hall (2002). The employment relationship has been re-examined in the light of institutional child abuse cases.

9. Employers’ liability and vicarious liability

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Child Abuse ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Psychological Safety ◽  
Employment Relationship ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Statutory Requirement ◽  
Compulsory Insurance

This chapter discusses both common law and statute on employers’ liability and vicarious liability. Employers’ liability is concerned with the employer’s personal, non-delegable duty in respect of the physical and psychological safety of his employees. This was established in Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English (1938) and is reinforced by the statutory requirement that employers have compulsory insurance. Vicarious liability involves the employer being liable to a third party for the tort of his employee. This must occur in the course of employment, a concept which was redefined in Lister v Hesley Hall (2002). The employment relationship has been re-examined in the light of institutional child abuse cases.

Still Awaiting Clarity: Why Victoria’s New Civil Liability Laws for Organisational Child Abuse Are Less Helpful than They Appear

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Griffin ◽  
Gemma Briffa
Keyword(s):  
Child Abuse ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
Royal Commission ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
High Court ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Institutional Responses

In 2017 Victoria became the first Australian jurisdiction to initiate substantive reforms to its civil liability laws, to address barriers faced by plaintiffs seeking to hold institutions liable for child abuse. The new law, based on recommendations arising from a Victorian inquiry, establishes a statutory duty of care owed by organisations to take reasonable precautions against abuse of children under their care or supervision. On its face, the Wrongs Amendment (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2017 (Vic) looks like a helpful clarification of this complex area of law. However, when viewed within the context of the work of the Royal Commission on Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, as well as common law principles – particularly strict liability in the areas of non- delegable duty and vicarious liability, and the High Court decision of Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC – we see that barriers and uncertainties remain.

Third Party Beneficiary: A Comparative Analysis

1976 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Shalev
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
General Part ◽  
The Common ◽  
Comparative Survey ◽  
The Right

Chapter 4 of the new Israeli Contracts (General Part) Law, 1973, introduces the concept of a contract in favour of a third party, while granting express recognition to the right of a third party beneficiary. Even those, (including the author) who maintain, that the right of a third party beneficiary could and should be derived, even before the commencement of the new Law, from the general principles and premises of the old Israeli law of contract, cannot fail to see in the above-mentioned chapter an important innovation in the Israeli legal system.This paper is a comparative analysis of the institution of third party beneficiary. The analysis will consist of a presentation and critical examination of the central concepts and doctrines involved in the institution under discussion, and it will be combined with a comparative survey of the arrangements adopted in various legal systems. The choice of this approach stems from the particular circumstances of the new legislation.While in most countries, comparative legal research is a luxury, in Israel it is a necessity. The new legislation in private law is inspired to a great extent by Continental codifications. As far as the law of contract is concerned, Israel is now in the process of becoming a “mixed jurisdiction”: departing from the common law tradition and technique, and heading towards an independent body of law, derived from various sources, mainly Continental in both substance and form.

4. Privity and third party rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 72-96
Author(s):  
Jill Poole ◽  
James Devenney ◽  
Adam Shaw-Mellors
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Privity Of Contract

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the doctrine of privity and third party rights. The doctrine of privity of contract provides that a person who is not a party to a contract (called a ‘third party’), cannot acquire rights under or enforce the provisions of that contract or rely on its protections even if the provisions were intended to benefit that third party. At common law there are complex, and sometimes artificial, ways to avoid this conclusion. More significant nowadays is the attempt to reform this principle by legislation in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, allowing some third party beneficiaries to enforce the provisions of contracts.

Tracing at Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Calnan
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party

This chapter explains what tracing is. Differing descriptions of the expression are discussed. Tracing does not seek to examine intention; tracing imposes a proprietary interest. The chapter discusses the principles of tracing at common law and how a person becomes a legal owner of a substitute asset. In particular, the rules as to indentification of a substitute asset are discussed. The chapter contains a detailed discussion of the case law on tracing at common law. Attempts to distinguish tracing from ‘following’ are discussed. The chapter distinguishes tracing against the wrongdoer from tracing against a third party.

Introduction

2007 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Chester Brown
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Homogeneous Body ◽  
Short Introduction ◽  
International Courts ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
History Of ◽  
International Adjudication

This chapter gives a short introduction to the history of international dispute settlement by third-party adjudication. It notes that there is a gap in the existing literature, being an examination of procedure and remedies before different international courts, and an answer to the question of whether the same procedural rules obtain, and the same remedies are available, before different international judicial bodies. It presents the book's central thesis — that international courts often adopt common approaches to questions of procedure and remedies, which leads to increasing commonality in the case law of international courts. It then explains that the term ‘common law of international adjudication’ refers to the emergence of an increasingly homogeneous body of rules applied by international courts and tribunals relating to procedure and remedies. It then defines the terms ‘procedure’ and ‘remedies’. It also covers certain selected aspects of international adjudication, and reviews the jurisprudence of certain selected international courts and tribunals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document