Under the tort liability law, also known as "the law of negligence", a person is considered liable for committing a tort, if they have failed to satisfy the standard of care - a standard determined by the behavior of a reasonably prudent individual. The tortfeasor's actions are measured against the actions of a reasonably prudent person, and they are found to be below-standard, the individual is guilty of negligence. The tort liability law applies mainly to unintentional torts. In the case of intentional torts and strict liability torts, the defendant is found guilty regardless of negligence. If a wrongful act is done deliberately, the possibility of negligence is ruled out automatically.
INTRODUCTION Vicarious liability is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes a liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. ‘ Qui facit per alium facit per se’ and ‘Respondent Superior’ are some Latin phrases that support this premise. Some relationships of this sort are: 1. Agent- Principal 2.
Certain conditions must be satisfied before liability can be considered. The person who is accused must have committed an act of omission or commission; this act must have been in breach of the person’s duty; and this must have caused harm to the injured person. The complainant must prove the allegation against the doctor by citing the best evidence available in medical science and by presenting expert opinion. Criminal Liability and medical
The principle of negligence is to determine a guilty party when someone acts in a careless manner and causes injury to another person. Negligence names the careless person legally liable. In order to win, the plaintiff must prove four different elements. The first element that must be proven is Duty of Care. The defendant must have owed the plaintiff legal duty of care.
1.0 INTRODUCTION Imposing liability for an act never committed may sound baffling at first, but this does happen, Criminal conspiracy is that field of law which essentially involves the imposition of criminal liability on the basis of the intention or Mens Rea of the individuals’ intending to commit the crime, though in actuality the said crime is never committed. In lay man terms the crime of conspiracy occurs when two or more people form an agreement to commit a crime, there is however no limit on the number of people who can participate in the conspiracy . Conspiracy law requires that the parties involved devise to engage in an illegal act, and have a general intent to violate the law . A criminal conspiracy occurs when two or more people
Joint Liability is called “constructive Liability”. constructive Liability in criminal law means the Liability of a person for an offence which he has not actually committed. It is different from vicarious Liability which is Liability one incurs for the act of a servant or an agent during the course
In criminal law when a criminal act is alleged to have been committed, the essential requirement for the crime is that the victim was opposed to the crime. One of the available defences when a criminal act is committed is that the victim actually gave consent to the acts . The defence of consent is available to certain case that result in bodily harm which includes assault and battery. For instance, in sports there is a physical contact. Participants are deemed to have consented to the physical contact and possible bodily harm.
In this case, the Court held that the corporate entity is different from the people who are in the business of running of the company. The breach of this principle results to “Lifting of the Corporate Veil” where the shareholders or creditors of the company are protected if the company is engaged in any fraud or other criminal activities. At the same time, this theory possesses several relationships with criminal and tortious liability of companies. This paper will demonstrate the critical evaluation of this areas of law in the context of appropriate cases and other relevant various sources. Alter Ego identification theory: It was not until the 1940s that English law considered a form of corporate liability in various judgement as DPP v. Kent & Sussex Contractors Ltd .
LIABILITY The liability of the person committing the wrong can be of three types depending on the harm or the injury suffered by the injured person they are 1. Civil Liability- civil liability usually involves the awarding of damages suffered in the form of compensation. If there is any breach of duty of care while operating or while the patient is under the supervision of the hospital or the medical professional they are held to be vicariously liable for such wrong committed. And are liable to pay damages in the form of compensation. At times the senior doctors are even held vicariously liable for the wrongs committed by the junior doctors.
By recognition as legal personality and holding the corporations criminally liable a more effective sanctioning is allowed which leads to adoption of better standards and responsible corporate behavior discouraging future misconducts. Criminal liability provides for more concrete punishment than the civil liability as punishment is by way of fines or dissolution and the fear of damage to reputation is created. Criminal liability over individual would at most punish him and the corporation would go on carrying its activities undeterred. Fines imposed on corporations are far more substantial that those imposed on