GovanAllan 0 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I know you are studying law, but are you sure about this? I always thought and I know it is in Holland that a boss is always responsible for the actions of his workers even although they do something stupid to cause an accident. While I am at work my boss is responsible for all my actions. My business is covered by public liability insurance, which covers the business against any court action resulting from public injury. As far as I know the boss is responsible for his employees and the buck stops with him. Of course the employee probably loses his/her job. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 ETA: I think we honestly have a good chance of winning the action. David Cameron said, in Question Time today, that he would speak to HMRC about a similar thing at Portsmouth or somewhere. Did he say this directly in relation to our situation? A political response to this I think would be wise and possible, if there are still Rangers supporting MPs. Oh there are, but they don't seem to be anywhere near as vocal or organised as the MPs supporting the team in the east end. As I've said before, the fact the John Reid ended up where he did speaks volumes. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) I know you are studying law, but are you sure about this? Yes. An employer is vicariously liable for any delict committed by an employee, but, in Scots law at least, employer and employee are jointly and severally liable. In practice, a person always sues the company because they are most likely to have funds/insurance for such things. An employer could, in theory, attempt to recover losses via a breach of contract but don't. I always thought and I know it is in Holland that a boss is always responsible for the actions of his workers even although they do something stupid to cause an accident. While I am at work my boss is responsible for all my actions. Yup, the practical reality is that the employer is always, excluding times when its difficult to determine whether an employee/employer relationship exists, the one going to be sued. I don't know about Dutch law, but since vicarious liability - ie, extending liability to another's wrongs - is in violation of basic legal principles, I would be surprised if technically employer's liability weren't a form of joint and several there. It's almost a technical point, though. If employers do not have insurance for such claims, company directors can be sued personally. Edited February 3, 2012 by bmck 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) My business is covered by public liability insurance, which covers the business against any court action resulting from public injury. As far as I know the boss is responsible for his employees and the buck stops with him. As I said to Pete, this is the practical reality because an employer is always liable for the wrongs committed by their employee in the course of the employment, but the employee is still liable. However, it's not an option for the employer to say "Just sue him, I'm taking nothing to do with it" because they are joint and severally liable, so the person suing is always going to sue the employer. The reason you have public liability insurance is because, under law, your company is responsible for the wrongs committed by an employee. This does not exclude them from legal liability though, it's just in practice they won't be the ones being sued. Of course the employee probably loses his/her job. Negligence that leads to the activation of vicarious liability is a breach of contract. So, technically, an employer could sue a negligent employee for breach of contract. In practice, however, they don't. They tend just to fire them. Law's awful, man. Edited February 3, 2012 by bmck 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Did he say this directly in relation to our situation? A constituent MP raised it, saying Portsmouth were under threat of non-existence, and it is not a realistic option to just go and support Sunderland. She asked if the PM would ask HMRC to make any payments reasonable so the club could continue existing as it was going to be taken over by fans, or something of that sort. He said he would. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 My business is covered by public liability insurance, which covers the business against any court action resulting from public injury. Only if the company was negligible i.e. if Waitrose knew or could reasonably be expected to have known that milk had been spilled in the milk aisle and didn't get it cleaned up, then they would be liable. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 He said he would. PMs say a lot of things. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 A constituent MP raised it, saying Portsmouth were under threat of non-existence, and it is not a realistic option to just go and support Sunderland. She asked if the PM would ask HMRC to make any payments reasonable so the club could continue existing as it was going to be taken over by fans, or something of that sort. He said he would. If he does so then he creates precedence because HMRC still governs the UK as a whole. He does that for Pompey and that precedence will tie the hands of HMRC - I suspect that his advisors will be working on back-tracking statements already !! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 He said he would talk to them, I doubt he'll get them to concede anything given that it's the govt who'll get all the taxes. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 He said he would talk to them, I doubt he'll get them to concede anything given that it's the govt who'll get all the taxes. But the PM IS the HMRC (effectively). Regardless, I suspect the PM's offie will already be working on much back-tracking. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.