In a world where impulse governs the judgment of human beings, it’s not unusual to enter situations that exhibit mild to severe conflicts of interest, motives, or perspectives. As such, it is of utmost importance to have amicable ways to settle such disputes while minimizing their destructive effects on the individual(s), organization(s), and society. An important aspect of workplace dispute is the concept of vicarious liability. Simply put, it’s a doctrine that holds the employer responsible for the wrong acts of the employee(s).
In other words, one party may be held liable (or responsible) for the unlawful acts of the other. However, as always, legal terms are governed and subjected by cases; depending on the scenario, it’s important to effectively distinguish the extent to which the doctrine could be applied without amendment. Apart from this, the rules of vicarious liability differ from country to country as per the local laws of the nation/state. Moreover, there are a number of situations where it isn’t clearly defined as to who (or which party) is deemed responsible for the wrong action – the doer or the party bound to the former in a legal relationship. Also, there’s this issue of unintentional wrong doings (torts) and intentional wrong doings (criminal acts).
For unintentional wrong doings (torts), the compensation of the victim is prioritized, but in case of a criminal act, the punishment of the responsible parties is sought. In the end, the question comes up as – who is responsible for the actions, and who should be the one to compensate the victim? In light of this poised question, this brief essay will attempt to shed some light on the matter to reduce its complicated nature for the ease of understanding. It will begin with introducing the concept of vicarious liability in some detail, then differentiate between an intentional and unintentional wrong doing, further putting it in the context of employee – employer and contractor – client (muqawala) relationships. Then it will cite some cases to explain the exceptions (if they exist) to the proposed doctrine, and finally it will conclude with the amendments adopted in the local i.e. U.A.E. law and how they can be compared to their American and British counterparts.
Table of Contents
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Types of Vicarious Liability
- Possible Tests to Test Vicarious Liability
- Control Test (Employment Contract vs. Muqawala Contract)
- Work-Related Test
- Motivation Test
- Types of Torts
- Extent of Responsibility
- When the Criminal Act is Committed Within the Scope of Employment
- When the Criminal Act is Committed Outside the Scope of Employment
- Vicarious Liability Laws in the U.A.E.
- References
Objectives and Key Themes
This essay aims to clarify the complexities of vicarious liability, a legal doctrine holding employers responsible for their employees' actions. It explores the application of this doctrine in various scenarios, distinguishing between intentional and unintentional wrongdoing and considering the implications for different employment relationships (employee-employer and contractor-client). The essay also examines relevant case law to illustrate exceptions and variations in applying the doctrine.
- The concept of vicarious liability and its legal implications.
- Distinction between intentional and unintentional wrongdoing (criminal acts vs. torts) within the context of vicarious liability.
- Application of vicarious liability in different employment relationships (employee-employer and contractor-client).
- Analysis of case law and legal tests used to determine vicarious liability.
- Comparison of vicarious liability laws in the U.A.E. with those of other jurisdictions.
Chapter Summaries
Abstract: This abstract introduces the concept of vicarious liability, highlighting its importance in resolving workplace disputes and the complexities involved in determining responsibility for both intentional and unintentional wrongdoings. It briefly outlines the essay's structure and focus on clarifying these complexities.
Introduction: The introduction defines vicarious liability as a doctrine holding an entity responsible for the actions of another, even if innocent. It establishes the historical context of the doctrine and mentions key cases like The Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants and JGE v The Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust, highlighting the evolution of its application beyond traditional employer-employee relationships. The introduction lays the groundwork for the essay's exploration of the doctrine's nuances and its application in diverse situations.
Types of Vicarious Liability: This section distinguishes between "vicarious liability," where one party is responsible for another's actions, and "dual vicarious liability," where two parties share responsibility for the actions of a third party. The case of Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd is used to illustrate dual vicarious liability, emphasizing the complexities arising from subcontracting and multiple layers of employment relationships.
Possible Tests to Test Vicarious Liability: This section details the various legal tests used to determine vicarious liability. It focuses primarily on the "control test," differentiating employment contracts from "muqawala" contracts and outlining criteria for establishing an employer-employee relationship, a crucial factor for determining liability. The "work-related test" and "motivation test" are also introduced, highlighting their roles in assessing whether an action falls within the scope of employment and was motivated by the employer's interests.
Keywords
Vicarious liability, dual vicarious liability, employment law, tort, criminal act, control test, work-related test, motivation test, employee-employer relationship, contractor-client relationship, case law, U.A.E. law.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Comprehensive Preview of Vicarious Liability
What is the overall purpose of this document?
This document provides a comprehensive preview of an essay exploring the complexities of vicarious liability. It includes a table of contents, objectives and key themes, chapter summaries, and keywords, offering a structured overview of the essay's content.
What topics are covered in the essay preview?
The preview covers various aspects of vicarious liability, including different types (e.g., dual vicarious liability), legal tests used to determine liability (control test, work-related test, motivation test), the distinction between intentional and unintentional wrongdoing (criminal acts vs. torts), its application in various employment relationships (employee-employer and contractor-client), and a specific focus on vicarious liability laws in the UAE. Key cases are also mentioned to illustrate the application of the doctrine.
What are the key themes explored in the essay?
Key themes include the concept of vicarious liability and its legal implications; the distinction between intentional and unintentional wrongdoing within the context of vicarious liability; application of vicarious liability in different employment relationships; analysis of case law and legal tests; and a comparison of vicarious liability laws in the UAE with other jurisdictions.
What are the different types of vicarious liability discussed?
The preview distinguishes between "vicarious liability," where one party is responsible for another's actions, and "dual vicarious liability," where two parties share responsibility. The implications of these distinctions are explored, particularly in complex employment structures involving subcontractors.
What legal tests are used to determine vicarious liability?
The preview highlights the "control test" (differentiating employment contracts from "muqawala" contracts), the "work-related test," and the "motivation test." These tests are crucial in determining whether an employer is liable for the actions of an employee.
How does the essay address intentional versus unintentional wrongdoing?
The essay distinguishes between intentional (criminal acts) and unintentional (torts) wrongdoing, examining how vicarious liability applies differently depending on the nature of the act.
What is the focus on UAE law?
The essay includes a dedicated section on vicarious liability laws in the UAE, providing a comparative analysis with potentially other jurisdictions' legal frameworks.
What are the key cases mentioned in the preview?
The preview mentions key cases such as The Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants, JGE v The Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust, and Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd to illustrate the application and evolution of vicarious liability principles.
What is the structure of the essay?
The essay follows a standard academic structure, including an abstract, introduction, several main chapters addressing specific aspects of vicarious liability, and a conclusion (implied through the chapter summaries). The table of contents clearly outlines this structure.
What are the keywords associated with this essay?
Keywords include: Vicarious liability, dual vicarious liability, employment law, tort, criminal act, control test, work-related test, motivation test, employee-employer relationship, contractor-client relationship, case law, U.A.E. law.
- Citation du texte
- Angshuman Banerjee (Auteur), 2015, Vicarious Liability. Ethics and Social Responsibility, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/319763
