Alastair Johnstone 31/01/2012

[Zappa 0]

But the PM IS the HMRC (effectively). Regardless, I suspect the PM's offie will already be working on much back-tracking.

 

Sorry to be a pedant Craig, but I think you'll find that the PM is below HMRC in terms of authority. The PM is there to promote the notion of democracy, while HMRC are there to collect money from the people.

 

I agree though, there may well be a little back-tracking on the cards.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Zappa

[pete 2,499]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Two years ago a colleague of mine cut out all safety procedures to enter into the working area of a large machine. Another colleague unaware that he was in the machine came back from his coffee break and started the machine. The machine caught hold of the guy and he was crushed to death. Even although my colleague was totally stupid and at fault, bridging all the safety devices, breaking all company rules, my company received a huge fine for allowing it to happen. A company must insure(in precautions as well as insurance) itself even for total stupidity from it's workers.

[bmck 117]

Two years ago a colleague of mine cut out all safety procedures to enter into the working area of a large machine. Another colleague unaware that he was in the machine came back from his coffee break and started the machine. The machine caught hold of the guy and he was crushed to death. Even although my colleague was totally stupid and at fault, bridging all the safety devices, breaking all company rules, my company received a huge fine for allowing it to happen. A company must insure(in precautions as well as insurance) itself even for total stupidity from it's workers.

 

What I'm saying isn't disagreeing with that pete. Although, in this case because damage was done to an employee we are taking about something slightly different, but that's another matter. The point is that companies are indeed always liable, that's why they must have insurance, but it's just that the person at fault is technically liable too, even though they are rarely if ever sued. But because the law makes the company liable, they are always the one who is sued.

 

If you want to see what I mean, consider personal injury in certain parts of America. They have a form of proportional liability, rather than vicarious liability. So instead of the company sharing the full legal burden with the employee who committed the wrong, they share a proportion depending on circumstance. So, in America, the person who is injured sues everyone - the employee personally, the company they work for, the subcontractor who provided the equipment if it applies. The Court then determines the percentage each party is liable, and also the percentage each party should pay. In one quite famous cause in Disneyland, the company had to pay 83% damages while only being assumed 1% of the blame. In the UK and Holland it's different - while the person who makes an arse of things is technically at fault, the company share this culpa fully. As such, it is always always the company who are sued. This doesn't detract from the legal liability of the person who made the mistake though.