business cheap assignment help email Us : firstname.lastname@example.org
Call Us : +44-7497786317
Vicarious liability may be referred to as a liability undertaken by employers on behalf of their employees. It illustrates that if the employees are at fault during the performance of their duties then the employer may be at fault for the said damages caused from the actions of the employee. Such an employer would be at fault only if the damage takes place during the performance of the duties. If the performance of an act outside of the professional duties gives rise to the harm then the employer would not be liable for the same. The vicariously liability has a pre-existent condition attached to it that is the presence of the employer-employee relationship.
Vicarious liability also applies to a master-servant relationship as the servant does everything for serving to his master. In addition, the partnership implies a certain vicarious liability as the partners have an obligation towards each other’s actions. The duties of the employer towards his employees are such as providing a competent staff, safe place of work, plant and equipment of acceptable quality. The duties cannot be delegated. In certain cases the employer and employee both may be liable collectively as well.
Under the vicarious liability, the employer also has some duties as an occupier under the occupier’s liability act, 1957. It is that the occupier is responsible for the safety of its visitors be it permanent or temporary or trespassers. A certain amount of safety precautions shall be undertaken in order to provide a level of safety on the premises.
4.1 Apply the elements of the tort of negligence in different business situations
The case provided illustrates that Brian and Callus were playing at the golf course when Call um was playing a shot from behind of Brian that eventually hit Brian. It may be applied that Brian and Callus were both at negligence because Call um being on the ground had a duty towards the fellow members to play safely without causing damage. However, Brian had a duty to scan and check the safety of the surroundings he is playing in. As it was clear that the surroundings are not safe as other members are too present on the ground. It would amount to a case of contributory negligence whereby both the parties are at fault for no assessing the risk of the actions.
The case illustrates that the residents at the estate were aware of the common occurrence of the balls flying over to their houses. The residents were aware of the fact of the presence of the golf course around the property when the same was being bought. It may be said that the risk for foreseeable within the proximity. Hen Donald’s green house glass got shattered from a ball flying over to his space he had already known that it may happen someday for having a fair chance. However, the grounds of nuisance may be applied wherein the enjoyment of private property was obstructed due to the accident.
It is illustrated that the residents, Erica in particular was bothered by the golfers climbing over to the residents houses for collecting the flown over balls. On one of such occasions one golfer got hit by falling on to a brick that was laying around. It may be noted that the situation may be categorized as of being of foreseeable risk. The golfer had voluntarily put himself into the situation of getting injured by only climbing over if not falling even that in this case happened. Thereby, Erica would not be liable for any damages. On the contrary she may claim damages for nuisance for disrupting her to enjoy the private property.
It is illustrated that Frank and his family are obstructed from enjoying their private property for the sounds that come from the golf course from its bar and car parking. When Frank bought the house, he voluntarily put himself in such a position accepting the possible consequences such as these. The foreseeability and proximity of cause was voluntarily accepted. Frank would be allowed to claim the damages under the tort of nuisance for having his right of enjoyment from the personal property obstructed.
4.2 Apply the elements of vicariously liability in given business situations
The situation illustrates that the boy minor in age called Gary had illegally entered the premises of the golf course while trespassing to pick the golf course balls for the purpose of reselling. On his way to collecting the boy had fallen into a deep pit wherein he broke his leg from the fall. It may be derived that it was the duty of the golf course to take necessary precautions around the pit to safeguard the best interests of the visitors. Thereby, the golf course would owe the damages towards the boy for the injury so caused in its capacity of being the occupier under the Occupier’s Liability Act, 1957.
In the situation nit is presented that the spectator got injured from a flying ball on the premises. It is derived that being in the capacity of the occupier it was the duty of the golf course to take necessary steps towards the safety of the regular viewers as well as the spectator as it is a known fact that the balls would fly during a match. Thereby, the spectator may claim the damages. However, the same may not be claimed by Daniel that got hurt because he was walking his dog at a distance where the ball generally could not be hit.
It is illustrated that the act of food poisoning due to salmonella infected ham is a mere act of negligence on the part of the caterer. The caterer while performing her duties of supplying refreshments during the match should have checked for the safety of the ingredients being used. Whereby, the food poisoning was caused to the players the damages for the same may be claimed from the golf course that would be held responsible for the acts of the employee that is the caterer accordingly under the rules of vicarious liability.
It may be derived that the act of driving into Julia on the way back from the nursery would be an act of negligence on the part of the groundsman. As he was driving on the premises, he did the same under extreme circumstances of heavy rain shower. The same is not part of his official duty working in his capacity for the golf course. Thereby the injuries so caused to Julia arise out of the acts undertaken at his own risk and not the establishment’s thereby he would be liable and not the establishment under the rules of vicarious liability.
In the present situation it is provided that the tanks at the premises were over flown from water due to heavy and violent rainstorm resulting in flooding the houses, three in number, that resulted in negligence of the golf course for maintaining precautions against the same. Thereby as the houses were damaged from the same cause, it is the liability of the golf course to pay damages for the same as the causation id linked to the effect giving rise to a strict liability.