This Article concerns vicarious liability
in the franchising context, as addressed in a number of foreign jurisdictions.
In affirming the single-entity rule, the court relied exclusively on BMC and considered the general principles of vicarious liability
for divided infringement; thus, the court effectively excluded any joint and several liability from the scope of direct infringement under Section 271(a).
case remain critical to the determination of vicarious liability
S/S Bermuda Star, the Fifth Circuit created an exemption for ship owners from claims by passengers alleging vicarious liability
for the medical negligence of on-board medical personnel.
Though these two statutes would seem to have little in common, and the case law under each has developed independently of the other, this Article shows that similar policy considerations have driven courts to eschew vicarious liability
in both contexts, in favor of developing a form of "direct" organizational liability tied to the actions and omissions of the organization's highest-level authorities.
The Court flatly rejected the contention that the existence of a comprehensive franchise operating system alone establishes the kind of relationship that can give rise to franchisor vicarious liability
for the conduct of a franchisee's employee, concluding that "a contrary approach would turn business format franchising on its head.
ESA Vicarious Liability
in Pure ESA, Hybrid ESA, and Non-ESA
The vicarious liability
doctrine, in the context of the ESA, allows for the imposition of liability on a state or local government for a less direct form of take: when its policies authorize others to harm endangered species.
Modern authors state that the justification for imposing vicarious liability
"is largely one of public or social policy under which it has been determined that, irrespective of fault, a party should be held to respond for the acts of another.
He said: ""There is no vicarious liability
in criminal law.
It is important to note that the vicarious liability
cover does not confer any other rights of AOP membership on the business, nor does it confer personal medical professional liability cover on individuals working in the business.
Private plaintiffs have not typically prevailed in this attempt to impose vicarious liability
based on basic agency theory, because the mortgage broker is generally an agent of the borrower and not an agent of the lender.