{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02050473186119874, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.7727272727272725, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Recent legal developments

IN LISTER and Others v. Hesley Hall Ltd Lord Steyn, in giving the principal speech in the House of Lords, began with the statement: "The central question before the House is whether as a matter of legal principle the employers of the warden of a school boarding house, who sexually abused boys in his care, may depending on the particular circumstances be vicariously liable for the torts of their employee." The case came before the House because in Trotman v. North Yorkshire County Council, a case with very similar facts, the Court of Appeal decided against imposing vicarious liability on the employer.