The Experts below are selected from a list of 2277 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Joseph W. Booth - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
An Update on Vicarious Liability for Certified Nurse‐Midwives/Certified Midwives
Journal of midwifery & women's health, 2007Co-Authors: Joseph W. BoothAbstract:The unique placement of midwives in the health care industry prompts renewed consideration of Vicarious Liability. Generally, Vicarious Liability is the Liability of an employer for an employee's actions. A review of recent case law over the past decade shows limited case activity and indicates that the certified nurse-midwife/certified midwife (CNM/CM) roles do not create Vicarious Liability risks different from any other employee/agent. The lack of case law signals a lack of dispute over Vicarious Liability, not a lack of Liability. Absent unique statutory provisions, which may be in effect in a minority of states, an employer of a CNM/CM is as liable for the midwife's negligence committed in the scope of their employment as employers are generally liable for an employee's negligence. When there is no employment/agency relationship, Vicarious Liability does not apply. A collaborative practice agreement is a good example of a nonemployment arrangement. Proper contractual documentation of relationships and comprehensive professional Liability coverage are necessary to manage this form of Liability.
-
an update on Vicarious Liability for certified nurse midwives certified midwives
Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, 2007Co-Authors: Joseph W. BoothAbstract:The unique placement of midwives in the health care industry prompts renewed consideration of Vicarious Liability. Generally, Vicarious Liability is the Liability of an employer for an employee's actions. A review of recent case law over the past decade shows limited case activity and indicates that the certified nurse-midwife/certified midwife (CNM/CM) roles do not create Vicarious Liability risks different from any other employee/agent. The lack of case law signals a lack of dispute over Vicarious Liability, not a lack of Liability. Absent unique statutory provisions, which may be in effect in a minority of states, an employer of a CNM/CM is as liable for the midwife's negligence committed in the scope of their employment as employers are generally liable for an employee's negligence. When there is no employment/agency relationship, Vicarious Liability does not apply. A collaborative practice agreement is a good example of a nonemployment arrangement. Proper contractual documentation of relationships and comprehensive professional Liability coverage are necessary to manage this form of Liability.
Amanda Rene Winrow - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Personal protection: Vicarious Liability as applied to the various business structures.
Journal of midwifery & women's health, 2008Co-Authors: Brian P. Winrow, Amanda Rene WinrowAbstract:Within the field of midwifery, the issue of Vicarious Liability has become an emerging issue. The doctrine of respondeat superior imputes Liability to an employer without direct negligence. While the issue of Vicarious Liability has been explored in the past, those studies were focused on the Vicarious Liability of certified nurse-midwives/certified midwives (CNMs/CMs) for the negligence of their employees. This article explores the issue of Vicarious Liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior as applied within a practice consisting of two or more co-owners. This issue is of heightened importance, because CNMs/CMs increasingly enter into ventures with other CNMs/CMs in order to pool their resources. Many CNMs/CMs unsuspectingly assume the risks for the malpractice of their colleagues. This increased risk can be minimized by forming their practice as a limited Liability entity, thus avoiding personal Liability for the malpractice of their co-owner(s).
Anthony Gray - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A critique of the enterprise risk theory of Vicarious Liability
2019Co-Authors: Anthony GrayAbstract:The enterprise risk theory has gained prominence as an attempted justification and rationalisation for the imposition of Vicarious Liability upon employers. This paper makes several criticisms of the enterprise risk theory, including that it does not accurately describe how judges traditionally decide tort law cases, it does not adequately explain all features of Vicarious Liability law, and it does not justify the imposition of Vicarious Liability upon organisations.
-
Vicarious Liability: Critique and Reform
2018Co-Authors: Anthony GrayAbstract:This book provides a critical discussion of the current law of Vicarious Liability. It argues the doctrine has grown well beyond its traditional rationale and boundaries, and there is no satisfactory intellectual rationale for the doctrine. It rejects the enterprise risk theory currently in use in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Agency theory is probably the best hope for rationalising the doctrine.
-
The enterprise risk theory of Vicarious Liability
2018Co-Authors: Anthony GrayAbstract:The theory of enterprise risk is increasingly being utilised to justify the imposition of Vicarious Liability upon an employer. Under this theory costs associated with ordinary risks of business are allocated to an employer, regardless of fault. It has been adopted and applied by courts in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. The article argues the Australian High Court has been correct to refuse to adopt such an approach. It is contrary to fault-based Liability upon which much tort law depends, and is not justified by a deterrence rationale.
-
Why Vicarious Liability must be abandoned
2011Co-Authors: Anthony GrayAbstract:This article calls for a reconsideration of the doctrine of Vicarious Liability. I argue that the doctrine has become separated from its original rationale, not explicable in terms of any single coherent philosophical principles, and requires difficult and arbitrary lines to be drawn that don't fit the realities of the modern workplace. The doctrine is not consistent with other developments in Australian tort law in recent times.
Skye Saunders - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
revisiting Vicarious Liability in sexual harassment cases heard under the sex discrimination act
Alternative Law Journal, 2020Co-Authors: Patricia L. Easteal, Skye SaundersAbstract:This article considers recent trends in the judicial interpretation of workplace Vicarious Liability provisions with respect to sexual harassment matters under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)...
-
Revisiting Vicarious Liability in sexual harassment cases heard under the Sex Discrimination Act
Alternative Law Journal, 2019Co-Authors: Patricia L. Easteal, Skye SaundersAbstract:This article considers recent trends in the judicial interpretation of workplace Vicarious Liability provisions with respect to sexual harassment matters under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ( SDA). In a study undertaken by the authors in 2008, we found that the Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court appeared to be taking a ‘broad-brush’ approach in interpreting employers’ duty to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent sexual harassment and defining ‘in connection with employment’. The authors update that analysis and evaluate a sample of cases from 2011 to 2018, concluding that it is possible the Courts are approaching these legislative elements of Vicarious Liability with an increasingly narrow brush.
Patricia L. Easteal - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
revisiting Vicarious Liability in sexual harassment cases heard under the sex discrimination act
Alternative Law Journal, 2020Co-Authors: Patricia L. Easteal, Skye SaundersAbstract:This article considers recent trends in the judicial interpretation of workplace Vicarious Liability provisions with respect to sexual harassment matters under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)...
-
Revisiting Vicarious Liability in sexual harassment cases heard under the Sex Discrimination Act
Alternative Law Journal, 2019Co-Authors: Patricia L. Easteal, Skye SaundersAbstract:This article considers recent trends in the judicial interpretation of workplace Vicarious Liability provisions with respect to sexual harassment matters under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ( SDA). In a study undertaken by the authors in 2008, we found that the Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court appeared to be taking a ‘broad-brush’ approach in interpreting employers’ duty to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent sexual harassment and defining ‘in connection with employment’. The authors update that analysis and evaluate a sample of cases from 2011 to 2018, concluding that it is possible the Courts are approaching these legislative elements of Vicarious Liability with an increasingly narrow brush.
-
interpreting Vicarious Liability with a broad brush in sexual harassment cases
2008Co-Authors: Patricia L. Easteal, Skye SandersAbstract:Provisions in Australia Federal and State/Territory anti-discrimination legislation make employers directly responsible for incidents of sexual harassment by employees in the course of their employment. This study looked at 29 sexual harassment matters heard in the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia between 2001-2007 as well as 45 complaints received by the ACT Human Rights Office between 2001 to 2005. We examined the frequency with which employers are alleged to be Vicariously liable, the outcomes of the cases and the judicial officers’ interpretation of the two main requirements of the Vicarious Liability section(s): namely that the act of sexual harassment be ‘in connection with’ the harasser’s employment and that ‘all reasonable steps’ were taken by the employer to prevent the harassment from occurring. The findings of the survey were that overall both Courts and the Commission take a broad interpretation in assigning Vicarious Liability. Particular attention is paid to the decision of Lee v Smith & Ors [2007] FMCA 59 where the employer was found to be liable for sexual assault outside of normal work hours upon the complainant who was awarded $387,422.32.
