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 #vl
Question
The claimant alleged that he had been harassed by his manager within the meaning of s 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and that their mutual employer was vicariously liable for the manager’s behaviour. It was held that vicarious liability could be imposed for breach of statutory duty as well as for common law claims, provided the test in Lister v Hesley Hall was made out.
Answer
Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 251

Tags
#law #negligence #tort #vl
Question
The claimant alleged that he had been harassed by his manager within the meaning of s 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and that their mutual employer was vicariously liable for the manager’s behaviour. It was held that vicarious liability could be imposed for breach of statutory duty as well as for common law claims, provided the test in Lister v Hesley Hall was made out.
Answer
?

Tags
#law #negligence #tort #vl
Question
The claimant alleged that he had been harassed by his manager within the meaning of s 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and that their mutual employer was vicariously liable for the manager’s behaviour. It was held that vicarious liability could be imposed for breach of statutory duty as well as for common law claims, provided the test in Lister v Hesley Hall was made out.
Answer
Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 251
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The issue of whether an employer is vicariously liable for a breach of statutory duty by an employee was considered in Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 251. The claimant alleged that he had been harassed by his manager within the meaning of s 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and that their mutual employer was vicariously liab

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.