As a general rule, the law holds each person liable for the consequences of their own actions – if your intentional or negligent behavior results in harm to another person, you may be held civilly liable for the reasonable monetary value of the damage directly caused by your actions. Conversely, as a general rule, a person cannot be held liable for injury or damage caused by the intentional, negligent or other culpable behavior of another person. In law, liability means “responsible or legally liable; legally obliged.” [1] Legal liability concerns both civil and criminal law and can arise from different areas of law, such as contracts, tort, taxes or fines imposed by public authorities. The plaintiff is the one who wants to establish or prove responsibility. There is a form of responsibility between employers and their employees. This is called vicarious liability. For it to apply, a party is liable to a third party and the third party commits an illegal act. An employer may be liable for an employee`s actions if they are illegal (i.e. harassment or discrimination) or if the employee`s negligent actions during work cause property damage or injury.

[7] However, as with any general rule, there are exceptions. In some limited cases, New York law allows liability for a person who, while innocent of wrongdoing, can still be held legally liable for violations caused by another party`s conduct. Liability imposed in such cases is called “vicarious liability” because it arises solely from the acts or omissions of another party. The employer was held liable for its employee`s actions. You are responsible for the design of the entire project. A party may be held liable due to its own acts, omissions or human/animal actions for which it is legally responsible. The exact conduct required to hold a party liable varies depending on the individual laws of each state. For example, in Delaware, if someone suffered $50,000 in damages due to the negligence of two different people, they could recover the entire $50,000 from one of the two negligent persons, since Delaware is a jointly and severally liable state.

However, in a civil liability state like Georgia, the two negligent persons are only liable for the percentage of the damage they personally caused. The tenant is responsible for all repairs to the building. A party is liable if they are held legally responsible for something. Unlike criminal cases, where a defendant could be convicted, in civil proceedings, a defendant only faces liability. The master is responsible for the safety of the vessel. Every effort will be made to bring those responsible to justice. Another example: Article 388 of the Vehicles and Traffic Act makes the owner of a motor vehicle liable for the negligence of a person who uses or drives the vehicle with the owner`s permission. Authorization to use a vehicle does not need to be direct or explicit – authorization may result from circumstances (e.g. the owner who hands over the keys to the driver) or a specified behavior (for example, the driver frequently used the owner`s car for an extended period of time, and the owner was aware of such use but never objected). The law generally assumes that the use of a vehicle is with the owner`s permission, but this presumption can be rebutted by other evidence, such as theft or control of the vehicle without the owner`s knowledge.

In addition, the owner is not liable if the driver violates any express conditions or restrictions that may be associated with the authorization granted – for example, if only permission is granted to drive to a certain store and return, the owner is not liable on behalf of injuries caused by the driver while driving the vehicle to another location. = being accountable for your decisions and actions and expecting you to explain them when asked to be formally accountable to the public (so the focus on the position you have and the duties associated with it is very similar to “reporting to someone”) An employer should also be aware of how the extent of their liability may change due to the agreements of their representatives. An agent is a person authorized to act on behalf of another party (usually the principal). As a general rule, a principal is liable for a contract concluded by the agent if the agent was actually or apparently authorised to conclude the contract. Actual authority is an agent`s ability to track and perform certain activities based on the client`s communication and manifestations. An explicit power of attorney is when the principal clearly indicates what the agent is authorized to do, while implied power is based on what can reasonably be assumed that the agent can do on the basis of what the mandator expects of the agent. Explicit authority and implicit authority are the two types of real authority. The second type of authority is apparent authority. This is the case where the actions of a contracting entity reasonably lead a third party to believe that the contractor may act in a certain manner and conclude contracts with the third party on behalf of the principal. To determine whether an agent is responsible for a contract, the nature of the client must be examined.

There are four types of principals. A disclosed principal is known to the third party, and the third party knows that the agent is acting on behalf of that principal. The agent is not responsible for authorized contracts entered into for a disclosed principal because all parties are aware of the contract and who is a party to the contract. An unidentified principal exists when the third party knows that the agent is acting on behalf of a principal, but has no knowledge of the identity of the principal. The agent is generally responsible for contracts concluded for an unidentified principal. An undisclosed client exists when the third party does not know the existence and identity of the client and reasonably assumes that the representative is the other contracting party. In this case, the contractor may be held responsible for the contract. A non-existent principal refers to when an agent knowingly acts for a non-existing principal, such as an unincorporated association. The entrepreneur is liable here if he knew that the customer was not legally capable, even if the third party knows that the customer does not exist.

A contractor may also enter into contracts expressly agreeing on liability. To avoid this, agents should not make explicit commitments in their own name and ensure that the contract is binding only on the principal. A representative may also be liable to a third party if he or she is not authorized to engage a principal. The agent may escape liability in this scenario if the third party knows that the agent is not authorized, if the principal ratifies/confirms the contract, or if the agent informs the third party of his lack of authority. [5] In the business context, there are several methods to mitigate liability risk. For more information, see Company, LLP, LLCs. In addition, insurance is used by businesses and individuals to reduce the risk of potential liability. The court ruled that he could not be held personally liable for his wife`s debts. For example, under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” (Latin for “making the master answer”), an employer can be held liable for injuries caused by its employee, provided that the employee`s underlying actions were in the context of the employment.

The scope of the employment requirement generally excludes employer liability for acts committed by employees before or after work, that occur during the employee`s personal affairs (including during working hours) or that were done to promote the employee`s private interests rather than the employer`s business. For this reason, an employer is generally not vicariously liable for intentional crimes committed by an employee (for example, sexual assault or abuse), as these acts are generally considered to be motivated by the employee`s personal interests and therefore outside the scope of employment. While an employer cannot be held vicariously liable, the employer can still be held liable for damages if its own independent negligence caused or contributed to the injuries, such as a claim for negligent recruitment, surveillance or retention. It is important to note that parents are generally not legally responsible for the harmful acts of their minor children. However, in certain circumstances, parents may be held liable for their own negligence or recklessness that causes their child to hurt others. For example, a parent may be liable for injuries resulting from their failure to provide adequate care to their child or for leaving in their possession a “dangerous instrument” that, having regard to their age, intellect and predisposition, poses an unreasonable risk of harm to others. What constitutes a “dangerous instrument” depends, of course, on the facts and circumstances – a BB weapon in the possession of a mature and experienced seventeen-year-old may not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to others, but the same BB weapon in the possession of a five-year-old may very well do so. Similarly, a parent may be liable for injuries caused by exercising reasonable precautions when supervising or restraining a child with a known propensity for harmful or malicious behaviour that may endanger the person or property of others.

Responsibility requires both parental knowledge of the child`s background and the ability to effectively control the child.