The concept of vicarious liability refers to the situation when the responsibilities for the unlawful actions of one party are taken by a third party. In other words, when one party that is accountable to a third party violates the law, the third party is held responsible for this violation. As Kravtsova and Kalinichenko (2016) put it, vicarious liability represents a “combination fault and strict liability” (p. 690). For example, under the vicarious liability statutes, an employer will be held responsible if an employee is caught raping or robbing in the workplace.
The case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989 is one of the most prominent examples of vicarious liability. The possible reasons for the incident are the wrong actions of the captain of the tanker, poor conditions of the equipment, and fatigue of the tanker’s crew. One might argue that in this case, employees should be charged. Still, the court found the Exxon Shipping Company guilty of the oil spill because it is the responsibility of the employer to provide decent working conditions to the employees and control the quality of equipment.
In the expert community, there is no consensus on whether vicarious liability is fair and should exist in criminal law. It is rather challenging to decide whether vicarious liability should be used because each case is unique. Nonetheless, I find the concept of vicarious liability unfair because a decision to commit a crime could only be taken by one party, and only this party should be held responsible. For example, even in the case of Exxon Valdez, it might be argued that the tanker’s crew had to inform the administration of the company of their problems because this probably would have helped to avoid an oil spill.
Reference
Kravtsova, T., & Kalinichenko, G. (2016). The vicarious liability of parent company liability for its subsidiary. Corporate Ownership & Control, 14(1), 684-691. DOI: 10.22495/cocv14i1c4art15