Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:50:08 -0400

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Two employers

Dear Colleagues:

As to the doctrinal basis for vicarious liability, some of you might find the attached interesting.

Sincerely,

Robert Stevens wrote:

The problem with vicarious liability is that without an accepted explanation for its doctrinal basis, trying to articulate its proper boundaries is extremely difficult.

If the Court of Appeal are to be believed, a defendant can be vicariously liable for the acts of someone with whom he has no contract on the basis that he "was entitled to exercise control over the relevant act or operation."

If this is correct, why was it relevant that the individual who was careless had a contract of service with a third party? The logic of the Court of Appeal's position seems to be that whenever I exercise sufficient control over someone else I am liable for his acts even though I am not personally careless. If correct, parents should be vicariously liable for the acts of their children. (Of course, in some jurisdictions they are).

My initial reaction is that it is wrong.

--
Jason Neyers
January Term Director
Assistant Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>