Difference between employer vicarious liability and personal liability The Health and Safety in Employment Act in New Zealand is a criminal provisions act. So employers can be both vicariously and personally liable for actions of their employees. When may an employer be found personally liable for an employee's action, and when might they be vicariously liable? An example of a case where an employer was found to be personally liable is Linework Ltd v Department of Labour [2001] ERNZ 80. In this case a supervisor didn't pay attention for a moment and an employee was electrocuted while working on power lines. An example of a case where an employer was found vicariously liable is Department of Labour v Tranz Rail Ltd [2001] DCR 929. In that case the rail company employed an independent contractor to mow the grass. He had the chute towards the footpath, and it shot out a rock which hit a passerby. It was found the contractor should have been supervised. In both cases, the employer was liable. What factor determines whether the employer is personally or vicariously liable?
According to Wikipedia Vicarious Liability is a type of liability under the doctrine of "Respondeat Superior" (an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment). Now, in the first case that you have mentioned, the employee was on duty and was supposed to be under the supervision of the supervisor. Therefore, any mishap that might happen would be considered to be during the course of employment. Thus, attracting Vicarious Liability for the employer. While in the second case, an independent contractor (or a third-party) was put to work. This contractor is not an employee of the Rail company, but rather someone who is under a contract to fulfill a particular task. This essentially means that the Rail company cannot have complete control over the actions of the contractor, as it is not governed by the rules of the rail company as set out for its employees. But because both the parties were under some contract, the contracting party (that wanted to have a task accomplished) should have supervised in some manner, which translated to the Rail Company's personal liability.
Some of the categories involve restaurants (i.e. 1(h) and 1(i)), and employers may not want to go through the student learner exception hoops. Every employer has to get worker's compensation insurance for all of their employees. Those rates may be prohibitively high for minors in some kinds of activities. More generally, employers don't want to have worker's compensation claims or injured employees and may simply not trust younger employees to be safe. Some jobs involve access to alcohol that employers want to limit. Some jobs involve contractual authority or decision making that the employer wants to limit to adults.
You are responsible or assessing risks to your children A parent (or a person in loco parentis) is obliged to care for and protect their children this includes assessing the risk to those children and whether that risk is acceptable or should be avoided or mitigated. This applies to all risks, when they should cross the road, when they are responsible enough to be left home alone and, yes, who is a suitable person to care for them. This does not require any sort of formal or documented risk assessment process but if things go wrong, the state may require the parent to justify their actions. If the state believes that their actions were reckless then this may be a crime. If the state believes their actions were not reasonable then this may have ongoing consequences with child protection agencies.
Where the driver is an agent of the owner Most typically where the driver is an employee of the owner and is using the vehicle in the course of the employment. Where the owner is negligent or reckless in allowing use of the vehicle For example, where the brake warning light has been on for a while and the accident is due to brake failure.
BC employers are required to give workers three days of unpaid personal illness &amp; injury leave per calendar year. However, this protection only applies to workers who have held a job for more than 90 days. If you have not held the job for that long, it does not appear that any protections apply to you. Note that (as of March 2021) there are separate rules concerning COVID-19 exposure &amp; illness. There may also be protections that apply to you if you are a union member, or if you work in a federally regulated job (banks, national trucking companies, airlines, and some others.)
Without a jurisdiction, I'll just say that unless the comments made in the reviews and discussions were false, the individual is unlikely to have any claim, particularly given that you've stated that this occurred over the course of a year. However, the individual may be able to argue that they were not given sufficient notice of their performance, for example through performance evaluations, and given the length of time, it likely that one would have occurred. A company may be able to terminate an employee in spite of their overall contributions if they have breached policy - for instance, an otherwise outstanding employee who attracts negative customer reviews based in fact, and who is given ample opportunity and guidance to improve, may cause brand and reputational damage to the company; in this case, it is a commercial decision to retain or terminate the employee. As for what recourse the employee has, if the comments were factual, then it is likely that they will not have any, unless the employer has not adhered to procedural requirements - for instance, in Australia, you are required to provide an employee the opportunity to have a support person present at any meeting which may result in the employee's termination - or the employer broke some other law - for instance, discrimination, bullying or harassment law. Unfortunately, the contributions an employee makes does not necessarily negate the harm they do, and complaints based on an employee's performance are completely valid if factual.
Was the technician negligent? Just because he broke the oven, doesn't mean that he negligently broke the oven. In breaking the oven, he would have to have done something that a reasonable technician would not have done. Even if he was negligent, is the liability for his negligence excluded by the contract you signed when you hired him? And, if so, is such a limitation allowed under local law? In many parts of the USA, the answer is yes. In either circumstance, the technician is liable for nothing. Notwithstanding, assuming the technician is liable, there is little doubt they are liable for the cost of the repair. They are unlikely to be liable for the cost of providing access as, by the contract, you are responsible for providing this.
Yes Unless your business is a sole proprietorship it operates as a legal entity seperate from its owners. It owns its assets an acrues its own liabilities. It can be sued and it can sue others. It can also agree to its own contracts. Typically the only thing a legal entity that is not a natural person cannot do is sign a marriage contract. Depending on the industry there may be no need to sue. There exist many mandatory workplace insurance to cover accidents in the workplace. You may have to share details of the injury with them but they may be uninterested in whos at fault.