Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Vicarious Liability

Read a random definition: contra tabulas

A quick definition of Vicarious Liability:

Term: Vicarious Liability

Definition: When someone is responsible for the actions of another person because of their relationship. For example, if a boss is responsible for something bad that their employee did, even if the boss didn't do it themselves. This is also true for people who work together to do something wrong, where everyone can be held responsible for what the others did if they knew about it and wanted it to happen.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Vicarious liability is when a person or organization is held responsible for the actions of another person or organization because of their relationship. For example, an employer can be held responsible for the actions of their employees.

Under common law, a member of a conspiracy can also be held vicariously liable for the crimes of their co-conspirators if the crimes were foreseeable and committed with the intent of furthering the objective of the conspiracy.

Example: If an employee of a company causes an accident while driving a company vehicle, the company can be held responsible for any damages or injuries caused by the accident. This is because the employee was acting within the scope of their employment and the company has a responsibility to ensure their employees are properly trained and supervised.

Example: In a conspiracy case, if one member of the conspiracy commits a crime that was planned by the group, all members of the conspiracy can be held responsible for the crime. For example, if a group of people plan to rob a bank and one member of the group shoots someone during the robbery, all members of the group can be held responsible for the shooting.

Vicarious Infringement | Video news release

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
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.