Differences Between the Vicarious Liabilities a Corporate Criminal Liability Essay

Introduction

There are many differences between the vicarious liabilities a corporate criminal liability. Vicarious liability arises when one person commits torts and the principal is held liable. The wrong doer is reliable to the injured person but the other person possibly the principal jointly becomes liable to compensate the injured party. It is upon the injured party to choose to sue the tortfeasors. If the other party was acting on behalf of a known principle it will be advisable for third party to sue them jointly rather suing one.

The concept of vicarious liability is based on the rule that employees usually do not have the capacity to incur damages therefore it is in order for the injured party to sue both parties the employee and the employer if the employee committed the tort while in the cause of employment. In the hospital if a nurse commits a tort the hospital will be liable for the torts committed by a nurse or a doctor in the course of employment. Take for example; there was a case that was covered in the CNN where a doctor negligently forgot a surgical blade in the stomach of a patient in one of the African countries. The hospital was held liable for negligence of the doctor.

The other example is where a nurse negligently, injected a patient in the wrong vein. It caused the patients hand to be amputated. In this case the hospital was held liable. In a case, of Lester Vs Ramford Ice and cold storage co. ltd, 1957. (Hussein A, 69)

L, a lorry-driver employed by the company reversed his lorry negligently and knocked down his own father who was also employed by the same company. The father recovered damages from the company for the negligent act of its employee, the company however succeeded in recovering damages from L because L had broken his obligation to the company to take reasonable care in the performance of its duties.

A master is liable for every wrongful act of the servant if committee in a course of employment even without any express approval by him. It is immaterial that the alleged act was done for the benefit of the master. But the master is not liable for torts committed beyond the scope of employment unless he has expressly authorized such acts or subsequently ratifies them.

Criminal liability

In criminal liability, it has many distinctions and these distinctions cannot be committed by a corporation. To begin with, criminal liability is where somebody is liable for breaching the public rights and duties that affects the whole community.

Crime is punishable by the state at the interest of the society. Criminal liabilities can only be incurred by individuals not corporations. The proceedings of crime are conducted by the stat verses an individual. From this description corporations cannot commit crimes however employees can commit crimes and they are held liable as individuals. An example of corporate crime is where an employee while performing his duty commits a crime. Take an example of a nurse in the hospital while examining a patient decides to pocket an expensive mobile of the patient. In such a situation the hospital will not be held liable but the individual employee.

Corporations a can be held liable for acts committed by employees so long as the acts are not ultra vires. Take the example where a nurse detains a patient for non payment of personal money that is given to the patient to buy something while in the hospital. If the hospital has a policy of detaining patients for non-payment of hospital charges but the nurse goes ahead to detain a patient for the personal money rent out to the patient in the hospital. This will be an act outside the powers of the corporation. Therefore the hospital will not be reliable but the detainee.

Apparent agency

An independent c790ontractor is one who undertakes to produce a given result without being in any controlled as to the method by which he achieves that result. He is free his own initiative and discretion as to methods appropriate to the nature of the contractual assignment. For the obvious reason that the employer has no strict right of control over the methods used by the contractor he is not liable for his wrongful acts committed during the execution of his work.

The test whether a man employed to work is as servant or an independent contractor is: Does the employer exercise control over the workman, and direct and not of an independent contractor. The employers right to inspect the work, to decide as to the quality of materials and workmanship or to stop the work to decide as to the quality of materials and workmanship, or to stop the work or to dismiss incompetent workmen employed by the contractor does not rendered his liable to the third person for the negligent act of the contractor in carrying out the work. There are however certain cases in which a person employing an independent contactor may still be liable for his torts:

1. Where the employer retains his control over the contractor and personally interferes and makes himself a party to the act which causes the damage.
2. Where the thing contracted it itself a tort.
3. Where the thing contracted to be done is likely in the ordinary course of events to do damage to other peoples property or prove a nuisance, there is a legal duty on the part of the employees to take all reasonable precautions against such danger.
4. It is no defense for an employer to say that he appointed a competent independent contractor where a legal duty is incumbent on employer to carry out a particular work efficiently and the contractor imperfectly performs such duty.
5. Where the liability is absolutely independent of negligence.

References

Carraso, C & Dupes, M K (1999) corporate criminal liability. The American criminal law review 36, (3).

Centre for corporate policy (2004) corporate crime and abuse. Tracking the problem. Web.

Graw S., (2005); An Introduction to the Law of Contract, 5th ed, Thompson Law book Company.

Hussein A., (2003); General Principles and Commercial Law, business education series pp 68 to 78.

Lawyers USA (2006); Illinois supreme court rules hospital vicariously liable based on theory of apparent authority St. Charles.Country business record Wentzevile, pg.1 Lawyers weekly.

Lawyers weekly USA (2006) Arizona court of appeals rules plaintiff cant sue hospital for vicarious liability. Lawyers weekly. U.S.A 1.

Medical malpractice com (2007) regional resources. Web.

Pentony B., Graw S., Lennard J. & Parker D. , (2003); Understanding Business Law Workbook, Butterworth’s.

Sweeney B and O’Reilly J., (2004); Law in Commerce, Second Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths.