Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

common-employment doctrine

Read a random definition: T-account

A quick definition of common-employment doctrine:

The common-employment doctrine, also known as the fellow-servant rule, is a legal principle that says an employer is not responsible for an employee's injuries caused by a coworker's negligence. However, this doctrine has been changed by workers' compensation laws in most places. In some cases, an employer may still be held liable if the coworker who caused the injury had power or control over the injured employee. This is called the superior servant rule or the doctrine of vice principal.

A more thorough explanation:

The common-employment doctrine, also known as the fellow-servant rule, is a legal principle that states that an employer is not responsible for the injuries caused by a negligent coworker to another employee.

For example, if an employee is injured due to the negligence of a fellow employee, the injured employee cannot sue the employer for damages under the common-employment doctrine.

However, this doctrine has been largely replaced by workers' compensation laws, which provide benefits to employees who are injured on the job, regardless of who is at fault.

In some cases, the common-employment doctrine may still apply if the injured employee and the negligent coworker were working towards the same goal or result. However, in other cases, the employer may be held liable if the negligent coworker had power or control over the injured employee.

Overall, the common-employment doctrine is a legal principle that limits an employer's liability for injuries caused by a coworker's negligence.

common elements | common-enemy doctrine

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:17
Possibly
RoaldDahl
16:26
Cool
RoaldDahl
16:26
thank you!!!! i hope it means something
pinkandblue
16:31
fart
IrishDinosaur
16:36
Mich R gang lesgooo
Did anyone else get that random get to know nova email?
HopefullyInLawSchool
17:21
Ya it was sent to all YM applicants
starfishies
17:37
Anyone get the NDLS email inviting you to apply for something even though they haven’t made a decision on your app yet
17:38
Better yet I got the email and I was rejected last month
starfishies
17:38
Wtf
starfishies
17:39
and the deadline is in like a week what is this
any cardozo movement?
BatmanBeyond
18:01
Sent a LOCI via portal, but I'm wondering if email would have gotten me a swifter response
BatmanBeyond
18:02
This whole hold/wait-list/reserve system is a headache
loci already?
BatmanBeyond
18:09
If the odds are like 1-2% I don't think it matters much by the numbers
12:11
I got the same NDLS email
OrangeThing
12:18
I think the user profiles are broken
19:29
Any word out of Notre Dame?
19:29
Only the invitation to apply for LSE
19:29
Anyone received a decision from NDLS?
19:50
when did u guys apply that just heard from umich? they havent even glanced at my app yet
0:30
how am i supposed to spy on people when profile links are broken?
Right. Broken links smh
I've been UR since first/second week of Jan, no updates otherwise, is that a bad sign? At or above median LSAT and above 75th gpa.
The profile links are not working for me. anybody else?
13:18
i’m in the same boat mastermonkey but with lower stats. i hope i hear back by mid march
CheeseIsMyLoveLanguage
13:24
@mastermonkey45: Looking at some of the recent decisions in relation to when they went complete, I'd say it's a good sign. It seems many declines were sent within about 5-6 weeks of completion. Given those were applications that were SENT in January, I'd say that means you're still solidly in the running. :)
14:30
Sent an app to OSU in early december and have STILL not heard back
Give it 4 more weeks at least. Everyone in this chat needs to wait longer.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.