Introduction to Civil Obligation
Introduction to Civil Obligation
Civil Obligation代写 Vicarious liability is when an employer takes responsibility for the conduct or misconduct of their employee.
Knowing and Understanding the Law Civil Obligation代写
Employer Liability in the Workplace
Generally, the employer is vicariously liable to the actions and negligence of the employees as long as they are within the scope of their employment. Vicarious liability is when an employer takes responsibility for the conduct or misconduct of their employee. The principle used here is the relationship that exists between the master and the servant. In this case, it is assumed that the servant (employee) takes orders from the master (employer).
For there to be employer liability under the law of tort, there must be negligence. Negligence in this context is the failure of the employee to take reasonable care in the execution of duties which lead to harm to the third-party. And which could have been avoided if reasonable care was taken. For instance, in the case of Colwell v Top Cut Foods Pty Ltd (2018) the employer was found vicariously liable for the action of the employee assaulting the other employee.
It was established that the action of the assailant was foreseeable given his behaviors at work and criminal history. As such, the employer could have taken action to make sure the assailant does not harm anyone. Further, the assailant caused the harm to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant was awarded the damages at the expense of the defendant employer.
Investigating Legal Issues Civil Obligation代写
For the tort of negligence to actionable and damages awarded, the four elements of proof under the law of tort must be fulfilled. First, the plaintiff must show that the accused owed a duty of care to him/her. Second, prove that the accused breached the duty of care. Third, prove that there was harm caused either physically or emotionally. Forth, the action of the defendant resulted in damages. The use of relevant case studies better explain these elements.
The element of Duty of Care
The duty of care is the responsibility of not to harm others either persons or property by not being reasonably careful. For instance, in the case between Borland v Makauskas & Anor (2000), the appellant accepted to have the duty of care towards the respondent. As such, the appellants have taken all the measures to control all the foreseeable harm to the third party by electing the fence around the pool.
On the other hand, the respondent was familiar with the appellant home ground and did what he in total disregard of the danger he might inflict on himself. The court, therefore, observed that, although the appellant owed a duty of care to the respondent. The respondent was well versed with the compound, and the appellant had as well tried to control any harm to the outsiders. There was no breach of duty.
The element of Breach of Duty of Care Civil Obligation代写
In this case, the respondent must prove that the accused owed him/her a duty of care when the event occurred and that that duty of care was breached. Like in the case Stokes v House with No Steps (2016) in which the plaintiff claimed to have suffered mistreatments from one of the clients. On the side of accusation, the defendant who was the employer was accused of negligence. The court observed that the defendant was negligent, but the plaintiff could not prove that the accuse breached a duty of care. Furthermore, it was further stated that there was not foreseeable harm from the side of the employer and thus vindicated.
The element of the Actual Harm Cause
The plaintiff has a responsibility to prove that there was actual breach of duty. Whether that breach resulted in physical or emotional harm. The case between Colwell v Top Cut Foods Pty Ltd ACN 010 650 281 , was proved to be actionable and the plaintiff awarded damages. In the case argument, the defendant was held liable for the action of the assailant employee who caused actual harm by inflicting injuries. The plaintiff was able to prove that harm was actually inflicted by a co-worker. Furthermore, the harm can be the actual or proximate cause. The actual cause is the straightforward harm while the proximate cause is vested in the legal decision for recognition.
The element of Actual Damages Civil Obligation代写
Like in the case of Colwell v Top Cut Foods Pty Ltd ACN 010 650 281 (2018). The plaintiff was capable of proving the damages caused after the assault thus the damages were rewarded. Although the damages might not be quantifiable, the court offers puts into consideration all the elements that are costs to the plaintiff.
Burden of Proof
In examining the burden of prove, it is essential to cite Carswell v Corporation of Trustees of Roman Catholic Archdiocese Brisbane (2012) case. Where the plaintiff failed to prove of how the incident caused harm and injury. In the case, her honor could not accept to inferences of the facts owing to the lack of standard prove thereof. As such, sometimes the proof can be difficult even though the harm was caused intentionally.
Response to the Law Civil Obligation代写
Evaluation of Law and response
The applicability of law is based on facts rather than speculation, and as such the cases evaluated have shown a precise application of law without biasness. Some decisions by the stakeholders led to the appellate where there are overturned like the case of Borland v Makauskas & Anor (2000). In such cases, the plaintiff might misrepresent the facts which may also mislead the court. Nevertheless, the cases were fair and effective in delivering justice.
Opinion About the Court System
Generally, looking at the cases analyzed, the court system is good when it comes to seeking justice. The court system is not prone to unfairness as the honors are the neural parties seeking to let the justice prevail in the country. However, some cases should be referred to the arbitration to reduce the burden of cases clogging judiciary. In support of this, such cases as Colwell v Top Cut Foods Pty Ltd ACN 010 650 281 (2018) and Borland v Makauskas & Anor (2000), could be settled using alternative means or ombudsman or arbitration. The alternative methods reduce court backlogs, create a friendship in the parties involved, and improve the justice system.
References Civil Obligation代写
Borland v Makauskas & Anor (2000) QCA 52
Colwell v Top Cut Foods Pty Ltd ACN 010 650 281 (2018) QDC 119
Carswell v Corporation of Trustees of Roman Catholic Archdiocese Brisbane (2012) QSC 253
Deans v Maryborough Christian Education Foundation Ltd (2018) QDC 123
Stokes v House with No Steps (2016) QSC 79