Subject Matter Index

Browse cases by legal subject matter and principles

Classes of employment for the purpose of vicarious liability

Classes of persons for whose tort another person may be liable

Condition for establishing vicarious liability

Condition for establishing vicarious liability against a public official

Condition to be satisfied for an employer to be vicariously liable for the actions of its employee

Effect of failure to joint the tortfeasor in an action founded on vicarious liability

Extent to which an employer would be liable for the wrongful act of his employee

Facts that must be proved before an employer/master can be held vicariously liable for the actions of his employee/servant

General principles of vicarious liability

How to determine whether a wrongful act is done by a servant in the course of his employment

Liability of an employer for torts committed by his employee

Meaning of vicarious liability

On whom lies the onus of rebutting the presumption that the servant was acting in the course of his employment

Presumptions arising from an employer's admission of being the owner of the vehicle involved in an accident at all material times

Requirements for establishing vicarious liability

Scope of the doctrine of vicarious liability

Tests for determining vicarious liability

The basis for the imposition of vicarious liability in joint ventures

The basis of the doctrine of vicarious liability

The best criteria for determining vicarious liability

The position of the law on the liability of a master for his servant's acts

The principle of vicarious liability of a company for the acts of its staff explained

The principle that a servant is presumed to act in the course of his employment

The principle that both the employer and the servant are joint tortfeasors

The required relationship between the employer and the tortfeasor for the employer to be vicarious liable

The rule that a master is jointly and severally liable for any tort committed by his servant in the course of his employment

The rule that for a master to be vicariously liable, the act must be done in the master's interest

The rule that vicarious liability is a tool in the hands of the injured third party against the employer

What a claimant relying on vicarious liability must prove to succeed

What it entails

What vicarious liability entails

When a bank will be liable for the acts of its manager

When a company registered under Act 179 will be vicariously liable for the acts of its employees

When a master will be vicariously liable for negligence which occurred from the use of his vehicle

When a tort is said to come within the course of a servant's employment

When an employee will be said to be acting within the scope of his employment

When an employer will be vicariously liable for the negligence of his servant

When an employer will not be vicariously liable for actions of its employee

Whether a claimant is at liberty to sue either of the two joint tortfeasors their liability being joint and several

Whether a company can be charged to be vicariously liable for the acts of its agents or servants

Whether a corporation aggregate can be held liable for fraud committed by its servants or agents

Whether a corporation aggregate is liable to be sued for any tort

Whether a corporation can be held vicariously liable where the business carried out by the servant or agent is not one of the businesses it was incorporated to undertake under its Memorandum and Articles of Association

Whether a master is responsible for actions of the servant though not done in a way in which the master has authorised

Whether a master is vicariously liable where the servant undertakes an act against his master's commands

Whether a party can be vicariously liable to itself

Whether a person travelling as a passenger in a vehicle provided by his employer is in the course of his employment

Whether a principal is vicariously liable for fraud committed by his servant acting within the scope of his employment

Whether a servant can be held liable for an act or omission of the master

Whether a servant who is the principal tortfeasor must be joined in the suit

Whether an act done in defiance of a prohibition is within the scope of employment

Whether an admission of a driver of the fact of negligence is admissible against the employer

Whether an employee is personally liable for the acts he performed on behalf of his employer within the scope of his authority

Whether an employer can be vicariously liable for an act committed by the employee which has been expressly forbidden

Whether an employer cannot be vicariously liable for the act of his employee where the employee is not joined in the action

Whether an employer will be vicariously liable for a tort committed by an independent contractor

Whether an employer will be vicariously liable simply because the employee was performing an official duty

Whether it is enough that the misconduct should have occurred in the course of doing an act of a kind which the servant was usually authorised to do for the master to be vicariously liable

Whether it is necessary to prove that there was an employer/employee relationship between the actual tortfeasor and the person sought to be made liable

Whether mere ownership of a vehicle is enough to prove vicarious liability

Whether the admission of ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident raises a presumption that the employee was driving in the course of his employment at the material time

Whether the employer of a security company will be liable for deliberate acts of thefts by employees of the security company

Whether the government can be held liable in vicarious liability

Whether the hirer of a vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligence of the purchaser

Whether the issue of duty of care is apposite in considering the tort of vicarious liability

Whether the liability of the master for the tortious acts committed by the servant in the course of his employment is vicarious

Whether the mere engagement by one person of another to render services for him without more is sufficient to make him vicariously liable for his tortious act

Whether the state, being immune from tortious liability, can be held vicariously liable for the tort of its servants

Whether vicarious liability can extend to fraudulent acts or omissions of a servant

Whether vicarious liability can lie in crime

Who a servant is

Access More on judy.legal

Get related cases, follow principles for updates, and access AI-powered research.

Explore judy.legal