Vicarious liabilityGeorge can sue the employer under the doctrine of vicarious liability. This is a doctrine in the English tort law that holds the employers liable for the wrong doing of their workers. Under the doctrine an employer is basically held liable for torts which their employees have committed in the course of executing their duties. This liability is now wide to even cover international torts such as sexual assault and cheats. Vicarious liability at the present covers even the activities that are closely related with a worker’s duties.
George is likely to be successful since in the common law tort, policy reasons should allow employees injured in the course of carrying out their duties have better means of getting compensation. Employers are generally assumed to have more assets compared to their employees to offset losses. At the same time since the employee is under the control of the employer, then it is under the employer’s instructions that a worker commits a tort. The consequences of the tort should thus be offset by the employer. It has also been justified that as a means of minimizing the taking of risks by employers, adequate precaution measures should be observed in the course of carrying out the duties (Levinson, 2005). Employers’ liabilityGeorge is still favored by the doctrine of employer liability.
In the case of employer liability, the employers are held liable under the respondeat superior doctrine for torts such as negligence or omissions committed by their employees in the course of carrying out their duties. Although George committed an act of negligence by failing to wear the appropriate protective clothing or gear when carrying out his duties, the employer is still liable since all employees are under his/her control.
In some cases, the courts distinguish between a worker’s detour and frolic. For example an employer will be held liable is liable if it is proved that the worker had gone on a mere detour when executing the assigned roles while a worker acting in his or her own right instead of the employer’s interest is considered a folic and does not render the employer liable for any injuries. Under these conditions, George’s employer is liable for the injuries since he was working in the interest of the business.
The underling conditions clearly indicate that George was working for the interest of the employer. Suppose the case was different und George was working for his own interest, then the employer would be relieved of vicarious liability which is mainly evaluated via the doctrine of respondeat superior. In that the law of worker’s compensation would also relieve the employer of the liability of the injuries caused during a frolic or a detour. Just as a principal has the liability for intentional torts committed by his/her agents, an employer is held liable for unintentional torts of his workers.
George’s tort of negligence can be classified as unintentional which implies that the employer automatically becomes liable for the injuries. A similar case applies to partners in a partnership. Each partner is held liable for unintentional tort committed by any of the other partners (Levinson, 2005).