Concurrent liability Text [13.45] – [13.65]‚ [13.80] – [13.120] Vicarious liability is the liability of an employer for a tort committed by an employee within the course of employment Stevens v Brodribb sawmilling the existence of control between an employer and employee is not enough to prove a relationship for vicarious liability. Further criteria such as obligation to work‚ hours to work etc is also considered Elazac pty ltd v Sheriff the plaintiff was not an employee but a contractor
Premium Tort law Tort
Conclusion This study is focused on the information of the faculty . This research study is about developing a system that will aid in record keeping and in issuance of records of the faculties. Designed to support large amounts of data and simultaneous access by a number of users. User preferences allow users to permit printing documents or to keep it in electronic format; users also have the facility to update their system preferences‚ while the system keeps a track of all such changes administered
Premium Gramophone record Information systems Knowledge management
Tort Law and Cases: A Comparison of Two Cases and Their Potential Frivolity8/22/2010 | Introduction “A tort is a civil wrong resulting in injury to a person or property”; that is brought before a court to compensate the injured party (Bagley & Savage‚ 2010‚ pg 251). In order to prove an intentional tort‚ the following conditions must be met: 1) Intent 2) Voluntary act by the defendant 3) Causation 4) Injury or Harm. The following tort cases‚ Pearson v. Chung and Liebeck
Premium Tort Tort law
Conclusion In this study‚ a sincere attempt has been made towards finding out ways and means for automating activities in the Adamson University school library. The objective of this study is to use various full-featured open source-Integrated Library System for the automation of the major day-to-day activities of the various section of the school library‚ which is tiresome and cumbersome. After the investigation‚ the researcher has found that Koha Software is more suitable for the library
Premium Library Open source
. Identify and explain the four elements of proof necessary for a plaintiff to prove a Negligencecase. The four elements of proof necessary for negligence to be proved are Duty to protect‚ Failure to Exercise Reasonable Standard of Care‚ Proximate Cause and Actual Injury. In a health care setting‚ Staff and physicians have a duty to protect patients from foreseeable dangers that could lead to injury. They have a duty to make sure equipment is in good working order‚ so it does not lead to harm
Premium Law Tort Tort law
6.0 Conclusion 6.1 Review 6.1.1 Organizational Design Organization chart MCIS Zurich Insurance Bhd. Kulim branch is shaped departmentalization of functions. MCIS Zurich Insurance Bhd. Kulim branch headed by a General Manager‚ Mr Yap Eang Liong. He is assisted by two other managers who head the department in this organization. With this organizational chart‚ he can make it easier to distribute tasks and responsibilities to departments or employees who working under him. With this‚ the employee organization
Premium Management Leadership
QWeek 2 Question One: What are the elements of negligence? How does an intentional tort differ from negligence? Provide examples. How does the strict liability doctrine apply to the practice of accounting? Provide examples. Key elements of negligence: Duty of Care: This element is about the care and concern that every human being with a sound and rational mind should show towards their fellow human beings. Breach of Duty: failing to meet your agreed upon obligations Harm: Causing harm or damage
Premium Tort Law Tort law
Aspects of Contract and Negligence for Business Table of Contents Introduction 3 CONTRACT BEGINNINGS 3 MAJOR CONTRACT ELEMENTS 3 CONTRACT FORMATION 5 CONTRACT TERMS AND REMEDIES 6 CONTRACT EXEMPTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 NEGLIGENCE PRINCIPLES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9 NEGLIGENCE DEFENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 VICARIOUS LIABILITY 1 NEGLIGENCE REMEDIES 13 EMPLOYER LIABILITY‚ HEALTH
Premium Contract Tort Common law
Wayne is walking along a footpath near a golf course. He gets struck in the eye with a golf ball. There were no barriers between the golf course and the footpath. The place where Wayne was hit about 100m from a tee (a tee is where players drive the golf ball). Wayne can no longer work as a surgeon and he brings wants to bring legal proceedings against the golf course. REQUIRED Advise Wayne whether he will be successful in legal proceedings against the golf club? ISSUE Has the golf club breached
Premium Duty of care Golf Standard of care
loss to the plaintiff while the damages are foreseeable‚ the defendant will be liable to negligence. The following shows why ABC ltd is negligent and therefore liable to Johnny and Kenneth. Negligence is behavior that falls below the standard of reasonable‚ prudent and competent people. The careless behavior alone of the waiter would not incur liability to ABC ltd. Only when it leads to the damage by negligence‚ which is actionable‚ would incur liability. In Donoghue v Stevenson‚ friends of Mrs. Donoghue
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law