0
Vicarious liability is when someone can be held liable for the negligent acts of another person even though that person possessed no fault in furtherance of the negligent or tortious acts. For example, often employers can be held vicariously liable for the actions of their employers. Lets say your employer asks you to run an errand across town. As you're driving you get in an accident and severely injure another person. Since you (1) were an employee (2) acting in the scope of your employment (3) and doing something in furtherance of your employers business - your employer could be vicariously liable for injuries even though you were the one who got into the accident.
Strict liability is again a type of liability that does not require fault. For example, if you own a pet cougar (lets say that there is no law in the jurisdiction against this). You can take all precautions like installing an electric fence or putting up warning signs, but once that non community custom / wild animal escapes and injures someone you are strictly liable. This is compared to negligence. The law says that if I have a domesticated animal (dog, cat, rabbit) and lets say my dog escapes and bites someone, then I am not strictly liable and the plaintiff would need to prove that I was negligent.
To further the concept of strict liability: Often strict liability claims come in the form of an abnormally dangerous activities. Think of this actual case (Miller v Civil Constructors): Police officers are firing their guns in a gravel pit for target practice. A bullet ricochets off a rock and strikes an innocent man near the site. Does this sounds like an ultrahazardous activity? Of course it does. Humans are firing guns at targets and we all know that if something solid his another solid thing it is likely to bounce off. So as the injured person you would not want to hold the officers strictly liable (because you want to dig deeper into the pocketbook), but you will want to hold the department or the owner of the gravel pit strictly liable.
The court in the previous case ruled the following. For someone to the liable in a strict liability case when you are dealing with abnormally dangerous activities the following factors must be considered:
1) Was there a high degree of harm?
2) Was the likelihood of harm great?
3) Can you eliminate the risk with reasonable care?
4) Is this a matter of common usage?
5) Was it appropriate to the place?
6) Is the value outweighed by the dangerousness?
Think about the factors, the outcome and look the case up. Sorry so long but I am a law student and this has helped me learn in the process :)
What else can I help you with?
What is the difference between absolute and strict liability?
In strict liability, there are certain defenses available whereas in absolute liability, there are none.
Why the vicarious liability is type of strict liability?
Vicarious liability holds an employer legally responsible for the actions of their employees. It is considered a form of strict liability because the employer is held accountable for the actions of their employees, regardless of fault or intent. This means that the employer is liable for any harm caused by the actions of their employees in the course of their employment.
Strict liability and tortuous liability?
Strict liability is a form of civil liability, similar to negligence. The main difference between strict liability and tortious liability is that you can be held liable for any harm resulting from certain activities without any fault, simply because the activity falls within the classification of strict liability. Most states have adopted strict liability in some form, and activities that qualify fall into two general categories.
How and why did Elizabeth Arden start her own business?
with aid of cases statutory discusses the concept of strict liability and vicarious liability How does this make sense?
What is carious liability?
Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability because, unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability
Which liability has to be created by statute?
Strict liability, which holds individuals or entities responsible for their actions regardless of their intentions or level of care, is typically created by statute. This is done to protect public safety and ensure accountability in certain situations such as product liability or dangerous activities.
What is the difference between strict liability and negligence in terms of legal responsibility for harm caused?
Strict liability holds a person or entity responsible for harm caused regardless of fault, while negligence requires a showing of carelessness or failure to act reasonably in order to establish legal responsibility for harm caused.
What is strict liability?
Strict liability makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (or fault in criminal law terms, which would normally be expressed through a mens rea requirement; see Strict liability (criminal)). Strict liability is important in torts (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. For analysis of the pros and cons of strict liability as applied to product liability, the most important strict liability regime,
What is the difference between a negligence and a strict liability tort?
Negligence requires a breach of a duty of care owed to others, resulting in harm that could have been prevented. On the other hand, strict liability holds a defendant responsible for harm caused by their actions regardless of fault or intent, if the activity is deemed inherently dangerous.
Is strict liability liability without fault?
Yes
Strict liability is liability without fault?
Yes it is
Concept of strict liability under Indian penal code?
Strict liability is the liability to punitive sanction despite the lack of mens rea.
