StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

What Is the Controlling Law, Testimony and Liability - Research Paper Example

Cite this document
Summary
The paper "What Is the Controlling Law, Testimony and Liability" discusses that the plaintiffs will have to establish that Tex and Rex were employed, acting within the scope of their duties and that the injuries sustained were as a result of negligence, reckless disregard, or intentional conduct…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER91.1% of users find it useful
What Is the Controlling Law, Testimony and Liability
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "What Is the Controlling Law, Testimony and Liability"

Vicarious Liability: Whom to Sue? In the instant case, the injured parties would be well within their legal rights to consider seeking damages from the ostentatious resort as well as from Tex and Rex. The legal bases for including the resort as a defendant in the civil action derive from well-established notions of agency law and have been expressed in legal parlance as theories known as vicarious liability, joint and several types of liability, and/or Respondeat Superior. Given the extant of the damages suffered, therefore, plaintiffs would be well-advised to name both the alleged agents and the resort as defendants. As an initial matter, vicarious liability refers to a type of liability that results from the commission of negligent acts or criminal acts committed by one or more persons that is, by law, thereafter shared or assigned to another person or other persons. (Hill v. McQueen, 1951: 484-485). Significantly, this liability via attribution is imposed vertically; more specifically, a person is subject to liability when a person or persons under its control cause some type of injury through negligent behavior, reckless behavior, or intentional behavior. In this case, Tex and Rex were sponsored by the resort and this sponsorship was made known to potential customers. In addition, the injuries sustained resulted from the negligence, and perhaps, reckless disregard of the resort’s agents, Tex and Rex. They knew, for example, that Molly had certain potentially hazardous inclinations; they knew that the injured party was ignorant when it came to horses; and finally, as experienced stable hands, they knew that injuries could result from placing inexperienced riders on such a horse. The resort might argue that Tex and Rex acted in excess of their duties or authority; however, an important principle of vicarious liability holds that “An employer may be held responsible for the tort committed by the employee where the act is incidental to and done in furtherance of the business of the employer even though the servant or agent acted in excess of the authority or willfully or maliciously committed the wrong” (Ada-Konawa Bridge Co. v. Cargo, 1932: 7). The plaintiffs, as a result, should not be deterred by allegations that Tex and Rex acted in excess of their authority because this type of liability can still vest and include the resort as a responsible party. The problem, in the instant case, is whether Tex and Rex are to be classified as employees acting within the scope of employment or whether they are, in fact, independent contractors simply providing a service under their own control. If the latter then the resort can be held liable, but if the former then agency principles provide an arguable escape route for the resort. Some further information needs to be determined. For, example, the facts refer to a sponsorship agreement or relationship between the stable hands and the resort. Does this sponsorship arrangement rise to the level of an employer-employee relationship or did Tex and Rex retain control over their enterprise so that they will be classified as independent contractors? These are the issues that need to be examined in more detail; in the meantime, however, the resort ought to be named as a defendant because they are a deep pocket and because they can arguably be said to have negligently entrusted the horse riding operations to two careless characters. Reimbursement Options: What is the Controlling Law? There is no question, should the resort be held liable, that it would want to consider whether or not it would be able to seek reimbursement from Tex and Rex. The issue is complicated by the fact that different states and different legislative frameworks treat reimbursement rights in slightly different ways; for instance, as noted by a research study issued by the Congressional Budget Office: For injuries caused by more than one party, the question arises of how much liability to assign to each party. Courts generally use one of two rules in answering that question (although other approaches can be imagined). Under joint-and-several liability, any one injurer or subset of injurers can be held responsible for paying all of the damages. That individual or group often has the right to seek reimbursement from the remaining injurers. Under several liability, by contrast, the court determines the relative contribution of each injurer in causing the harm and holds each one responsible for only that proportion of the damages. In the past 20 years, many states have either eliminated joint-and-several liability under some or all circumstances or have restricted it in various ways--for example, by limiting it to certain types of damages or to injurers whose liability exceeds a certain percentage threshold (An Overview of Policy Options for Changing the Tort System, 2006: n.p.). What needs to be known is the current governing standards with respect to state law. If the applicable law relies on traditional notions of joint and several liability then the resort can be held responsible for paying all of the damages; as a consequence of being responsible for paying all of the damages, the resort may then have a corresponding right to seek reimbursement from Tex and Rex (Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood, 1986: 61-62). If the applicable state law, on the other hand, relies on a several liability framework, then there are different implications. First, the resort cannot be held responsible for all of the damages. Instead, the judge will determine the extant of each defendant’s culpability and assign a percentage of damages to each (Cleere v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 1983: 785-786). In this case, there can be no reimbursement because the judge allocates blame and therefore damages to each party. Given the fact that Tex and Rex would not appear to have much money, the plaintiffs will probably hope for a joint and several liability jurisdiction whereas the resort will hope for a several liability jurisdiction. These are issues that need to be explored and more information needs to be gathered in order to determine the controlling law. Testimony and Liability Again, whether the plaintiffs can secure witness testimony in exchange for promises to absolve that witness of liability for damages, depends on the jurisdiction. Where, for example, the jurisdiction is premised on joint and several liability, the resort can be ordered to pay all of the damages and they can then seek reimbursement. The right of reimbursement, therefore, belongs to the resort and it cannot be abrogated through a side-agreement between the plaintiffs and Tex. Tex would have to defend himself against the resort in the reimbursement action and the plaintiffs could not unilaterally grant any type of immunity to Tex. In a several liability jurisdiction, on the other hand, liability is determined by the court on a percentage basis. In such a case, where the resort would have no reimbursement option, the plaintiffs would have more flexibility with respect to Tex. In all likelihood, some liability would be assigned to Tex, because the other defendants would demand he be joined, but the plaintiffs could agree to settle for nearly nothing or not to enforce a judgment against Tex in exchange for his testimony. The benefit would be Tex’s testimony, but the loss would be the percentage of damages assigned to Tex. There are thus two issues that require the gathering of further information. First, what type of jurisdiction is this and, second, does a cost-benefit analysis suggest that insulating Tex from an enforcement of any judgment would increase the likelihood of establishing and winning the underlying civil action. Conclusion In the final analysis, much depends on the controlling law; in any event, because the resort is a deep pocket, being ostentatious and all, it should be named in the original papers. The plaintiffs will have to establish that Tex and Rex were employed, acting within the scope of their duties, and that the injuries sustained were as a result of negligence, reckless disregard, or intentional conduct. The plaintiffs will be best served if they can compel the resort to pay all of the damages and leave them to any reimbursement rights on their own. If, however, this is a several liability jurisdiction then the plaintiffs must determine whether Tex’s proffered testimony justifies sacrificing his share of the damages. More research needs to be done to clarify some of the aforementioned uncertainties. References Ada-Konawa Bridge Co. v. Cargo (1932). 21 P.2d 1. “An Overview of Policy Options for Changing the Tort System” (2006) in The Economics of U.S. Tort Liability: A Primer. Congressional Budget Office. Retrieved August 24, 2008 Hill v. McQueen (1951) 230 P.2d 483. Cleere v. United Parcel Service, Inc., (1983). 669 P.2d 785 Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood (1986). 489 So.2d 61 Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“What Is the Controlling Law, Testimony and Liability Research Paper - 3”, n.d.)
What Is the Controlling Law, Testimony and Liability Research Paper - 3. Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/law/1547762-final-essay
(What Is the Controlling Law, Testimony and Liability Research Paper - 3)
What Is the Controlling Law, Testimony and Liability Research Paper - 3. https://studentshare.org/law/1547762-final-essay.
“What Is the Controlling Law, Testimony and Liability Research Paper - 3”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/law/1547762-final-essay.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF What Is the Controlling Law, Testimony and Liability

Model Penal Code

This is because despite having a prior felony record nowhere does this state insinuate that he is likely to be inclined to either side in his testimony.... This therefore shows that the false testimony does not affect the credibility of Franklin's evidence as a witness and therefore not material, and therefore unable to sustain a perjury conviction against him.... Once again, we are supposed to establish the materiality of the false testimony in the trial....
9 Pages (2250 words) Assignment

The Law of Torts, Products and Service Liability Law

Based on the law of torts and product and service liability laws, the essay seeks to compare and contrast the facts, law, and merits of the two lawsuits.... Temple University Hospital [1981] it can be noted that much of the plaintiff's testimony concerned her psychic activities and her inability to practice these activities following the CT scan....
11 Pages (2750 words) Assignment

Compliance with Guckenberger III

1998)] concluded that the university had complied with the law in determining that eliminating the foreign language requirement for students with disabilities would "fundamentally alter the nature of the degree.... 1.... In response to Guckenberger II, Boston University appointed a faculty committee to consider whether a foreign language requirement was an appropriate requirement for a student enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences....
7 Pages (1750 words) Case Study

Court Report

Circumstantial evidence, including highly suspicious facts and circumstances surrounding a transaction, may be considered in determining whether fraud has been committed. Investors who purchased a majority interest in a corporation did not commit fraud upon minority shareholder in either inducing him to execute employment and royalty contract, or during his subsequent performance under such contract; though following execution of contract investors failed to disclose their honest opinions on shareholder's job performance, failed to disclose facts concerning their attempts to sell corporation, and failed to disclose to prospective buyers corporation's potential liability to shareholder for enormous royalty benefits, such omissions and misrepresentations did not induce minority shareholder to execute contract, nor did he rely upon such omissions and misrepresentations to his detriment in his performance of the contract....
14 Pages (3500 words) Case Study

Expert Witnesses and Scientific Evidence in Court Martials

In the paper “Expert Witnesses and Scientific Evidence in Court Martials,” the author discusses the question of the expert witness' evidence and its relationship to the admissibility of an independent expert report in a court of law or other judicial forums.... It is hackneyed law that witnesses who possess a relevant degree of expertise have the competency to give evidence on the factual matters lying within their specialty to offer assistance or guidance to the judges in their ruling of the factual issues in dispute....
12 Pages (3000 words) Assignment

Law of Evidence: The Case of Charging Under Section 53 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

After getting hold of P, the police interview her for testimony on T's dealings and during the process, her interview is recorded.... Although P is not available to testify in court, her recorded testimony cannot be dismissed under the defense's argument.... Admissibility of P's recording is allowed in court based on direct testimony.... Every video testimony must be relevant to the facts of the case.... The court must ensure the video testimony of P is of unquestionable authenticity that there is not any distortion of information....
14 Pages (3500 words) Essay

Polygraph: Its Admissibility in Court

The court changed the old law of admissibility based on scientific expert evidence and stated that the Frye test was not consistent with the Federal Rules of Evidence in the case of Daubert v.... he existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation and 5....
5 Pages (1250 words) Report
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us