Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:28:28 +1300

From: Geoff McLay

Subject: Exemplary Damages and Vicarious Liability of the State - NSW v Ibbett

Jason

I have not yet read the judgment - but part of the answer might be that at least in NSW and most of the other states, there is a long tradition of holding the State liable as the State, as opposed to the vicarious liability for Crown liability that the UK, Canada and NZ has under the Crown Proceedings model.

Geoff

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Jason Neyers
Sent: Wednesday, 13 December 2006 2:40 a.m.
To: Neil Foster
Subject: Re: ODG: Exemplary Damages and Vicarious Liability of the State- NSW v Ibbett

 

Neil wrote:

An issue lurking in the background is the question of "master's tort" (liability for torts of the servant imputed to the master) vs "servant's tort" (liability for the acts of the servant imputed to the master, who has to owe a separate duty).

 

Isn't this backwards? Isn't the servant's tort theory the one that holds that liability for torts of the servant is imputed to the master?

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