Vicarious responsibility and uk law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Vicarious responsibility and uk law - Essay Example ssing in details if there can be a convincing argument to justify the boundary English law sets between acts of employees for which the employer is liable and those for which the employee is liable. Personally, I think that the argument is two- way -traffic for instance, there is a convincing argument for there is a justifiable distinction highlighted which clarifies what the employer ought to do in order not to be held responsible. Therefore the employer just needs to read in between the lines to make sure that he plays save at all times. On the other hand, it can be said that there is no convincing argument given the fact that some concepts in the law states that the employer can be held responsible even though the employee is no longer working in the premises. To start with, there are so many employers who have little awareness that they can be liable for a range of actions or omissions which are committed by their employees especially in the course of their employment. These actions comprises of violent, bullying, discriminatory act, breach of copyright, being liberal and bullying among others. In addition, it is possible that the actions can be taken against the employer for the behaviors of even the third party the like of the clients and customers if they are controlled by the employer. Therefore there is a convincing argument because the law clearly stated the relationship or the link between the employer and the employee which makes the employer liable for the omissions or behaviors of the employee. On that note, when it comes to vicarious liability one can only have one key question which is whether the employee was acting in a personal capacity or in the course of their employment? More so, it is possible to also ask if the employ ers’ liability ends with the dismissal of the employee from the organization or if the employee leaves the organization. Nevertheless, the law states that actions can be taken against the employer even though the employee