Under the English Common Law, Vicarious liability is a principle of the tort laws. The law imposes liability of employees and agents to their employers. Under this law, the liability of any tort committed by an employee that falls under the scope of his duties to the employer is transferred to the employer. This includes both the intentional and unintentional torts. The inclusion of the intentional torts came in to effect after the ruling in the case of Lister V Hensley Hall Limited. Before this case, intentional torts were not considered for vicarious liability. The reason for vicarious liability is to allow the injured parties to have better means of recovering their damages as employers are well placed to offer indemnity. This is because they have a comparatively immense number of assets than their employees and are economically well placed to pay damages. Vicarious liability has also proved to be a good way of reducing risks taking by employers and ensuring that sufficient precautions are observed in doing business. For vicarious liability to hold, the court must identify sufficient connection between the offender and the employer. The employer will be held responsible for the torts committed by his employers while performing their duties after ascertaining the above conditions (Emanuel 2009). In my case against Rex and Tex, the resort promoting the ride and the stable that employed the two, all can be held liable for damages I incurred if sued. For ease of receiving my damages, I can elect to sue the resort, which had sponsored the ride. The tort committed in this case is the intentional action by Tex and Rex to put me on the mare with impulsive urges to return to her stable mates without giving notice to her riders. This was despite me telling them of my ignorance about horses. The two having been acting on behalf of the resort are therefore, liable for the injuries I incurred when the mare (molly) succumbed...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document