THE NATURE OF A MASTER'S LIABILITY IN THE LAW OF TORT
AbstractIn the absence of judicial recognition of a basis for the master’s vicarious liability for the torts of a servant, the authors canvass the opposing views of four writers and expose a technical problem in the traditional view. They examine five situations while asking whether the master is liable in each: 1) where an infant servant commits a tort arising out of a contract breach for which he/she cannot be sued; 2) a servant commits a tort that is also a felony; 3) a servant commits a tort but a disease of the mind prevents knowledge of the nature and quality of the act; 4) infancy prevents a servant from being found negligent; 5) a servant knowingly fails to expose the misrepresentation of another servant.
Keywords:Master and Servant
Download data is not yet available.