Advantages Of Vicarious Liability

CHAPTER 5

COMPARISION OF LIABILITY STRATEGIES

In this section, I have contrasted the diverse strategies utilized to credit criminal liability to an corporation.

1. DERIVATIVE MODEL OF CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Nominalist theory sees corporation as collectivities of individuals. So culpability of corporation is the same as the culpability of the people connected with it. The idea that the corporation itself, free of its parts can be at risk is useless in this perspective of corporate identity. This infers that corporate obligation is subsidiary.

This perspective, as concisely put by Smith and Hogan accepts that a company "is a legal entity but has no physical existence and cannot act or form an intention of any kind except through its directors

This approach, which regards a company vicariously liable for the acts of any employee whenever an individual would be so liable, emerged in the law of torts in the nineteenth century. This is a common law idea that discovers application in criminal law today. Vicarious liability portrays the circumstances where one individual is held liable for the offense committed by another. Vicarious liability recognizes that a person may be bound to answer for the acts of another. Similarly in the case of corporations, the company may be liable for the acts of its employees, agents, or any person for whom it is responsible. The traditional theory of vicarious liability holds the master liable for the acts of the servant in the course of the master’s business without proof of any personal fault on the part of the master.There was a conventional hesitance by the English courts to apply the idea of vicarious liability in the criminal sphere as it is by and large acknowledged as shameful to denounce and rebuff one individual for the behavior of an alternate without reference to whether the first was really at

This idea takes the behavior and perspective of certain high-positioning authorities ("Relevant Factors") to be the behavior and perspective of the corporation itself with the goal that it may carry out straightforwardly wrongdoings which are not attributable to an corporation simply on the premise of corporate liability. This convention permits corporate risk for unlawful acts falling outside the adapt of vicarious liability, which was confined to carelessness in tort and to administrative criminal offenses. In a few forms of the doctrines, the personnels are regarded as the "directing mind " of the corporation. Master Denning in H.L.Bolton (Engineering) Co. v. T.J.Graham & Sons Ltd., clarifies this principle noticeably. He compares an corporation to a human body with a mind, an operational hub, and hands to hold the devices and to act as per headings from the center. He states that in a corporation there are two categories of people one who work in accordance with the directions laid down by higher authorizes and other set of people who make the rules and regulations for the functioning of a company. The first set of individual are simply hands to do the work, and can 't be said to speak to the brain or will and the second set of people are the directing minds controlling the will of the corporation who are the executives or supervisors." This is otherwise called