Law of Master and Servant

Law of Master and Servant

Postby squark » Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:13 pm

From here
http://www.victorianlondon.org/cassells/cassells-7.htm

Liability of Master (or Mistress) for a Servant
..........
Formerly a master was not liable to his servant for any injury happening in the course of his employment, nor even for exposing him to extraordinary risk; but by an Act passed in 1880 the employer is made liable if the injury arises through any orders to which the servant was bound to conform.
For all acts of a servant done by command of the master, that master is responsible, as he is also for certain acts not done by his command, but done under circumstances that seem to warrant the idea that the master has consented to be responsible. If a servant, in pursuance of direct orders, shoots a neighbour's dog, the master of the servant will be clearly responsible to the owner of the dog; and if a man has a coachman who drives badly and runs into a carriage, that man, by trusting such a driver with the reins, is assumed to have undertaken the responsibility of his acts. Some one must suffer loss; who so worthy as the man who caused it, by employing an unskilful servant? If a blacksmith's servant lame a horse in shoeing him, the blacksmith must make good the damage caused to the owner. It is at the same time no excuse to the servant who does an unlawful act, such as shooting the dog, that he did it by order of his; master. He is not bound to obey any unlawful command.
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
squark
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: Law of Master and Servant

Postby musashi » Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:59 pm

This is The Doctrine of Vicarious Liability.
The available defence is to claim that the servant was on "A frolic of his own".

Regina v Clegg, 1992, appeal court. "It is no defence to say that you were just following orders. This merely makes the superior an accomplice".
Also known as the Nuremberg Defence.

Maxim: "a judge acting outside of his authority is not obeyed with impunity".
It is no defence to say "That judge said I could do it!"
Just so with the bailiff who works a tort - he merely makes the authority he was working under liable on the claim.

Just had a brief peek at the you tube vid. Mark Dacasco. Know him and seen his programme. Thanks anyway.

Musashi.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm


Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests