This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
Sometimes third parties can be called to account for others’ actions, as if they were the direct wrongdoers. For example, a court might hold a company responsible for the negligence of its employees — an employee’s wrong simply becomes the company’s wrong. This extension of liability can be important to a plaintiff who might otherwise be unable to collect damages from the shallower pockets of the original wrongdoer.
This concept is known as “vicarious liability.” A common form of vicarious liability is that of an employer for their employee— “respondeat superior.” Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for any actions that fall within an employee’s scope of employment. In other words, McDonald’s might pay for an employee who carelessly spills hot coffee on a customer, but not when he or she goes home and spills hot coffee on a family member.
However, in many situations it is not so clear cut if the employee’s torts occur within his or her employment. Should a company pay for an employee’s car accident that occurs during a lunch break, away from work? Should a club owner pay for the injuries its bartender inflicts upon a customer who refuses to pay?
To answer these questions we consider cases that illustrate both the fundamentals of and exceptions to vicarious liability.EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST
Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (2/2 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/2 playlist item notes are private)
|1||Show/Hide More||Fundamentals of Vicarious Liability|
|1.1||Show/Hide More||Miller v. Reiman Wuerth Co.--"The Bank Errand Case"|
|1.2||Show/Hide More||Christensen v. Swenson--"The Lunch Break Case"|
|2||Show/Hide More||Possible Exceptions to Vicarious Liability|
|2.1||Show/Hide More||Bussard v. Minimed, Inc.--"The Bug Bomb Case"|
|2.2||Show/Hide More||Kuehn v. Inter-city Freight--"The Road Rage Case"|
|2.3||Show/Hide More||Sage Club v. Hunt--"The Violent Bartender"|
|2.4||Show/Hide More||Roessler v. Novak--"The 'Independent' Radiology Department"|
July 24, 2017
Harvard Law School, Berkman Center
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at email@example.com. Thank you.