- Vicarious liability refers to a situation where someone is held responsible for the actions or omissions of another person. In a workplace context, an employer can be liable for the acts or omissions of its employees, provided it can be shown that they took place in the course of their employment.
- Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine yof agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability because, unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability.The law has developed the view that some relationships by their nature require the person who engages others to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing of those others. The most important such relationship for practical purposes is that of employer and employee
- Employers' liabilit:
- Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment (sometimes referred to as 'scope and course of employment').To determine whether the employer is liable, the difference between an independent contractor and an employee is to be drawn. In order to be vicariously liable, there must be a requisite relationship between the defendant the tortfeasor, which could be examined by three tests: Control test, Organisation test and Sufficient relationship test. An employer may be held liable under principles of vicarious liability if an employee does an authorized act in an unauthorized way.
- Employers may also be liable under the common law principle represented in the Latin phrase, qui facit per alium facit per se (one who acts through another acts in one's own interests). That is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability, in which one person is held liable in criminal law or tort for the acts or omissions of another.
- The owner of an automobile can be held vicariously liable for negligence committed by a person to whom the car has been lent, as if the owner was a principal and the driver his or her agent, if the driver is using the car primarily for the purpose of performing a task for the ow


- ner. Courts have been reluctant to extend this liability to the owners of other kinds of chattel. For example, the owner of a plane will not be vicariously liable for the actions of a pilot to whom he or she has lent it to perform the owner's purpose.
- One example is in the case of a bank, finance company or other lienholder performing a repossession of an automobile from the registered owner for non-payment, the lienholder has a non-delegable duty not to cause a breach of the peace in performing the repossession, or it will be liable for damages even if the repossession is performed by an agent. This requirement means that whether a repossession is performed by the lienholder or by an agent, the repossessor must not cause a breach of the peace or the lienholder will be held responsible.
Are We at a Judicial Crossroads with the Decisions of Justices Umar and Omotosho on INEC’s Electoral Guidelines?
The two decisions of the Federal High Court delivered respectively by Justice Mohammed G. Umar and Justice James Kolawole Omotosho are already generating intense constitutional and electoral discourse within legal circles. Both judgments dealt with the legality of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s administrative timetable and guidelines issued for the 2027 general elections vis-à-vis the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026. Although both courts addressed substantially similar legal questions, they arrived at partially convergent and partially divergent conclusions. This has now sparked debate among senior members of the Bar on whether Justice Omotosho ought to be reprimanded for allegedly delivering a judgment inconsistent with that of Justice Umar. This article examines the two judgments, identifies their points of agreement and disagreement, and evaluates whether the controversy over judicial contradiction is legally sustainable or merely academic se...
Comments
Post a Comment
Drop your comment here.