encompasses several causes of action in tort law that arise where an employer is held liable for the tortious acts of an employee because that employer was negligent in providing the employee with the ability to engage in a particular act.
Consumer Goods & Retail Industry Litigation Blog
Addresses litigation-related issues relevant to consumer packaged goods manufacturers ("CPGs"), retailers, CPG advertisers and their in-house and law firm attorneys. Issues include antitrust, securities, advertising, and commercial litigation. Author: Daniel Low says that "after litigating cases related to in-store CPG marketing, I became interested in issues related to the CPG industry, including CPG-related advertisers and retailers." Blawg Related Categories: Advertising Law • Antitrust Law • Consumer Law • In-house Counsel • Securities Law • Trials & Litigation Discovery Sanctions Ordered Against Delta Air Lines Update on Chocolate Price Fixing Litigation GAO Report Supports Antitrust Whistleblower Protection Eleventh Circuit Reverses Judgment Against News America Whistleblower Insignia Releases Copy of Settlement Agreement with News America
Employer Liability in Car Accident Cases Negligent Supervision Vicarious Liability
Employer Liability in Car Accident Cases If a car accident occurs while an individual is driving a vehicle in order to perform his or her work duties or to do something for his or her employer, there may be employer liability. Negligent retention occurs where a party failed to remove an employee from a position of authority or responsibility after it became apparent that the employee was in fact misusing that authority or responsibility in a way that posed a danger to others. Negligent supervision is closely related, as it occurs where a party fails to reasonably monitor or control the actions of an employee. A variation of negligent retention or supervision is negligent training, which arises where the employer's training of the employee fails to prevent the employee from engaging in the acts that injure the claimant,
Negligent entrustment compared
Negligent entrustment compared Negligent entrustment arises where the entrustor is held liable for negligence because they negligently provided the entrustee with a dangerous instrument, and the entrusted party caused injury to a third party with that instrument. Where such a claim is brought against an employer, the employer will be held liable if the entrustee's record was known, or would have been easily discoverable, to the employer. For example, if a bus company hires a driver who has a record of reckless driving, of which the company could have learned through a search of publicly available records, the company would be liable for the negligent entrustment of the bus to that driver, should the driver cause an accident. Negligent entrustment differs from negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training in two key respects.
Vicarious liability compared
Vicarious liability is a separate theory of liability, which provides that an employer is liable for the torts of an employee under an agency theory, even if the employer did nothing wrong. The principle is that the acts of an agent of the company are assumed, by law, to be the acts of the company itself, provided the tortfeasor was acting within the course of his employment. By contrast, each of the above negligence theories requires proof of actual negligence on part of the employer before the injury occurred, for example when the employee was first hired.