Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#law #negligence #tort #vicarious-liability
Question
Daniels v Whetstone Entertainments Ltd [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1, in which an employee (a ‘bouncer’) assaulted the plaintiff twice – once, during the course of a fracas inside his employer’s premises, and a second time, outside the night club. Whilst the employers were held liable for the first assault inside the club, they evaded liability for the second. [ resoning ]. (It was also a criminal act. The general rule is that criminal acts are normally outside the course of employment – see below.)
Answer
This was seen as an act of personal revenge and was, therefore, outside the course of employment

Tags
#law #negligence #tort #vicarious-liability
Question
Daniels v Whetstone Entertainments Ltd [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1, in which an employee (a ‘bouncer’) assaulted the plaintiff twice – once, during the course of a fracas inside his employer’s premises, and a second time, outside the night club. Whilst the employers were held liable for the first assault inside the club, they evaded liability for the second. [ resoning ]. (It was also a criminal act. The general rule is that criminal acts are normally outside the course of employment – see below.)
Answer
?

Tags
#law #negligence #tort #vicarious-liability
Question
Daniels v Whetstone Entertainments Ltd [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1, in which an employee (a ‘bouncer’) assaulted the plaintiff twice – once, during the course of a fracas inside his employer’s premises, and a second time, outside the night club. Whilst the employers were held liable for the first assault inside the club, they evaded liability for the second. [ resoning ]. (It was also a criminal act. The general rule is that criminal acts are normally outside the course of employment – see below.)
Answer
This was seen as an act of personal revenge and was, therefore, outside the course of employment
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
laintiff twice – once, during the course of a fracas inside his employer’s premises, and a second time, outside the night club. Whilst the employers were held liable for the first assault inside the club, they evaded liability for the second. <span>This was seen as an act of personal revenge and was, therefore, outside the course of employment. (It was also a criminal act. The general rule is that criminal acts are normally outside the course of employment – see below.)<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.