1
00:00:00,100 --> 00:00:04,200
The eggshell rule also things go
rule papier-mache plaintiff rule

2
00:00:04,200 --> 00:00:07,400
or Talam column rule is a 
well-established legal Doctrine 

3
00:00:07,400 --> 00:00:11,000
in common law used in some tort 
law systems with a similar 

4
00:00:11,000 --> 00:00:13,100
Doctrine applicable to criminal 
law. 

5
00:00:13,600 --> 00:00:17,200
The rule states that in a tort 
case, the unexpected Frailty of 

6
00:00:17,200 --> 00:00:20,200
the injured person is not a 
valid defense to the seriousness

7
00:00:20,200 --> 00:00:23,000
of any injury caused to them 
law. 

8
00:00:23,400 --> 00:00:26,300
This rule holds that a 
tortfeasor is liable for all 

9
00:00:26,300 --> 00:00:28,700
consequences resulting from 
their tortious. 

10
00:00:28,800 --> 00:00:33,000
Usually, Aunt activities leading
to an injury to another person, 

11
00:00:33,000 --> 00:00:36,300
even if the victim suffers an 
unusually high level of damage, 

12
00:00:36,400 --> 00:00:39,300
for example, due to a 
pre-existing vulnerability or 

13
00:00:39,300 --> 00:00:42,900
medical condition, the eggshell 
Schoo rule takes into account 

14
00:00:42,900 --> 00:00:46,700
the physical social and economic
attributes of a plaintiff which 

15
00:00:46,700 --> 00:00:48,900
might make them more susceptible
to injury. 

16
00:00:49,300 --> 00:00:51,900
It may also take into account 
the family and cultural 

17
00:00:51,900 --> 00:00:54,300
environment. 
The term implies that if a 

18
00:00:54,300 --> 00:00:57,300
person had a skull as delicate 
as that of the shell of an egg 

19
00:00:57,300 --> 00:01:00,200
and a tortfeasor who was unaware
of the condition in, That 

20
00:01:00,200 --> 00:01:03,500
person's head causing the skull 
unexpectedly to break. 

21
00:01:03,700 --> 00:01:06,900
The defendant would be held 
liable for all damages resulting

22
00:01:06,900 --> 00:01:09,900
from the wrongful contact. 
Even if the tortfeasor did not 

23
00:01:09,900 --> 00:01:13,400
intend to cause such a severe 
injury in criminal law, the 

24
00:01:13,400 --> 00:01:15,700
general Maxim is that the 
defendant must take their 

25
00:01:15,700 --> 00:01:18,700
victims as they find them, as 
echoed in the Judgment of Lord 

26
00:01:18,700 --> 00:01:23,200
Justice Laden in our, for 
example, Blau 1975, in which the

27
00:01:23,200 --> 00:01:26,600
defendant was held responsible 
for killing his victim, despite 

28
00:01:26,600 --> 00:01:29,800
his contention that her refusal 
of a blood transfusion. 

29
00:01:29,900 --> 00:01:33,200
Did an intervening act. 
The doctrine is applied in all 

30
00:01:33,200 --> 00:01:37,100
areas, of torts intentional, 
torts negligence and strict 

31
00:01:37,100 --> 00:01:40,700
liability cases, as well, as in 
criminal law, there is no 

32
00:01:40,700 --> 00:01:44,300
requirement of physical contact 
with a victim, if a trespassers 

33
00:01:44,300 --> 00:01:47,100
wrongful presence on the victims
property, so terrifies the 

34
00:01:47,100 --> 00:01:49,000
victim that he has a fatal heart
attack. 

35
00:01:49,100 --> 00:01:52,000
The trespasser will be liable 
for the damages stemming from 

36
00:01:52,000 --> 00:01:54,800
his original. 
Tort the foundation for this 

37
00:01:54,800 --> 00:01:58,300
rule is based primarily on 
policy grounds, the courts. 

38
00:01:58,300 --> 00:02:01,600
Do not want the defendant or 
Used to rely on the victims own 

39
00:02:01,600 --> 00:02:03,800
vulnerability to avoid 
liability. 

40
00:02:04,300 --> 00:02:06,400
The thins. 
Go rule is not to be confused 

41
00:02:06,400 --> 00:02:09,500
with the related crumbling skull
ruin which the plaintiff suffers

42
00:02:09,500 --> 00:02:13,300
from a detrimental position from
a prior injury, for instance, 

43
00:02:13,400 --> 00:02:16,600
pre-existent to the occurrence 
of the present tort in the 

44
00:02:16,600 --> 00:02:19,600
crumbling skull rule, the prior 
condition is only to be 

45
00:02:19,600 --> 00:02:22,300
considered with respect to 
distinguishing it from any new 

46
00:02:22,300 --> 00:02:24,700
injury. 
Arising from the present tort as

47
00:02:24,700 --> 00:02:27,800
a means of a portioning damages 
in such a way that the defendant

48
00:02:27,800 --> 00:02:31,100
would not be liable for placing 
the If in a better position than

49
00:02:31,100 --> 00:02:34,900
they were in prior to the 
present, turret example, in an 

50
00:02:34,900 --> 00:02:38,900
example, a person who is 
osteogenesis imperfecta also 

51
00:02:38,900 --> 00:02:41,400
known as brittle. 
Bone, syndrome is more likely to

52
00:02:41,400 --> 00:02:45,200
be injured in a motor vehicle 
accident if the person with 0 is

53
00:02:45,200 --> 00:02:47,900
hit from behind in a motor 
vehicle collision and suffers 

54
00:02:47,900 --> 00:02:51,500
medical damages such as clavicle
fracture, it would not be a 

55
00:02:51,508 --> 00:02:54,800
valid defense to state. 
That the osteogenesis imperfecta

56
00:02:54,800 --> 00:02:59,800
was the cause of a fracture case
illustrations in the 1962. 

57
00:03:00,000 --> 00:03:02,900
English case of Smith V leech, 
brain and Company. 

58
00:03:03,000 --> 00:03:05,900
And employee in a factory was 
flashed with molten metal. 

59
00:03:06,300 --> 00:03:08,900
The metal burned him on his lip,
which happened to be pre 

60
00:03:08,900 --> 00:03:12,000
malignant tissue. 
He died three years later from 

61
00:03:12,000 --> 00:03:14,800
cancer triggered by the injury. 
The judge held that. 

62
00:03:14,800 --> 00:03:18,000
As long as the initial injury 
was foreseeable, the defendant 

63
00:03:18,000 --> 00:03:22,800
was liable for all the harm in 
1891, the Wisconsin Supreme 

64
00:03:22,800 --> 00:03:24,900
Court came to a similar result 
in Boss. 

65
00:03:24,900 --> 00:03:27,700
Berg for example, Putney in that
case. 

66
00:03:27,800 --> 00:03:29,700
A boy kicked another from across
the island. 

67
00:03:29,700 --> 00:03:32,800
The Classroom, it turned out 
that the victim had an unknown 

68
00:03:32,800 --> 00:03:36,100
microbial condition that was 
irritated and resulted in him 

69
00:03:36,100 --> 00:03:38,100
entirely losing the use of his 
leg. 

70
00:03:38,500 --> 00:03:40,800
No one could have predicted the 
level of injury. 

71
00:03:41,300 --> 00:03:44,200
Nevertheless, the court found 
that the kicking was unlawful 

72
00:03:44,200 --> 00:03:47,400
because it violated the order 
and decorum of the classroom and

73
00:03:47,400 --> 00:03:51,100
the perpetrator was therefore 
fully liable for the injury in 

74
00:03:51,100 --> 00:03:53,600
been the Appellate Court 
determined that the eggshell 

75
00:03:53,600 --> 00:03:56,100
rules should have been applied 
to a case in which a man had a 

76
00:03:56,100 --> 00:03:58,500
heart attack and died after 
being bruised in the chest 

77
00:03:58,500 --> 00:04:02,100
during a rear end car. 
Dent in the Australian case of 

78
00:04:02,100 --> 00:04:04,900
Mater, V Urban transit, 
authority of nsw. 

79
00:04:05,000 --> 00:04:07,900
The plaintiff was a ten-year-old
boy who struck his head on a bus

80
00:04:07,900 --> 00:04:10,700
stop Paul while alighting from a
slowly moving bus. 

81
00:04:11,200 --> 00:04:13,800
He developed a rare 
psychological condition known as

82
00:04:13,800 --> 00:04:16,500
cancer syndrome. 
The defendant argued that the 

83
00:04:16,500 --> 00:04:18,800
illness resulted from his 
family's response. 

84
00:04:18,800 --> 00:04:23,100
To the accident, McHugh just 
said at 537. 

85
00:04:23,200 --> 00:04:25,400
The defendant must take the 
plaintiff with all his 

86
00:04:25,400 --> 00:04:28,900
weaknesses beliefs and reactions
as well as his capacities and 

87
00:04:28,900 --> 00:04:32,000
attributes. 
Physical social and economic. 

88
00:04:32,400 --> 00:04:35,400
If the result of an accident is 
that a ten year old boy reacts 

89
00:04:35,400 --> 00:04:38,300
to his parents concern over his 
injuries and develops an 

90
00:04:38,300 --> 00:04:41,900
hysterical condition. 
No reason of Justice morality or

91
00:04:41,900 --> 00:04:44,800
entrenched principle appears to 
me to prevent his recovery of 

92
00:04:44,800 --> 00:04:48,900
compensation, in the Australian 
case of Cavanaugh V actor. 

93
00:04:49,100 --> 00:04:51,600
The Court held the tortfeasor 
should take into account, the 

94
00:04:51,600 --> 00:04:55,700
plaintiffs family, and cultural 
setting equality before the law 

95
00:04:55,700 --> 00:04:58,800
puts a heavy onus on the person 
who would argue that the unusual

96
00:04:58,800 --> 00:05:01,700
reaction of an Plaintiff should 
be disregarded because of 

97
00:05:01,700 --> 00:05:04,000
minority religious or cultural 
situation. 

98
00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:06,900
May not have been foreseeable 
exceptions. 

99
00:05:07,400 --> 00:05:10,700
Intervening causes typically an 
exception to the eggshell skull 

100
00:05:10,700 --> 00:05:13,900
rule, if an injury is not 
immediate but a separate 

101
00:05:13,900 --> 00:05:17,500
situation, agitates, the injury 
such as the injured party, being

102
00:05:17,500 --> 00:05:19,200
involved in a vehicular 
Collision. 

103
00:05:19,200 --> 00:05:22,500
While being taken to a hospital.
The tortfeasor is not liable. 

104
00:05:22,500 --> 00:05:26,300
Under common law in Australia, 
refer to Hopper V Walker, and 

105
00:05:26,300 --> 00:05:29,700
Mahoney V Cruikshank demolitions
in however V Walker. 

106
00:05:29,900 --> 00:05:32,700
It was held that a plaintiff 
will not be liable for a novice 

107
00:05:32,700 --> 00:05:35,000
actus intervene Ian's 
intervening act. 

108
00:05:35,100 --> 00:05:38,800
If the chain of causation was 
broken by a voluntary human act 

109
00:05:38,800 --> 00:05:42,200
or an independent event, which 
in conjunction with the wrongful

110
00:05:42,200 --> 00:05:45,200
Act, was so unlikely as to be 
termed a coincidence. 

111
00:05:45,600 --> 00:05:48,800
In Mahoney V crew, Chic 
demolitions the plaintiff clock 

112
00:05:48,800 --> 00:05:51,400
of it was injured while working 
on the demolition of a 

113
00:05:51,408 --> 00:05:54,700
Powerhouse for the respondent. 
While being treated for his 

114
00:05:54,700 --> 00:05:57,800
injuries, his injuries were 
exacerbated by the negligent, 

115
00:05:57,800 --> 00:05:59,600
medical treatment of the 
appellant. 

116
00:06:00,700 --> 00:06:03,500
It was held that, there was no 
novice act as a result of 

117
00:06:03,500 --> 00:06:06,200
medical treatment of injuries 
caused by the defendants 

118
00:06:06,200 --> 00:06:08,500
negligence. 
Unless such treatment is in 

119
00:06:08,500 --> 00:06:11,600
excusably, bad or completely 
outside the bounds of what a 

120
00:06:11,600 --> 00:06:15,500
reputable medical practitioner. 
Might prescribe the Curious 

121
00:06:15,500 --> 00:06:19,500
liability is a form of a strict.
Secondary liability that arises 

122
00:06:19,500 --> 00:06:23,400
under the common law doctrine of
agency respondeat Superior the 

123
00:06:23,400 --> 00:06:26,000
responsibility of the superior 
for the acts of their 

124
00:06:26,000 --> 00:06:29,400
subordinate or in a broader 
sense, the responsibility of an 

125
00:06:29,400 --> 00:06:31,200
ether. 
Third party, that had the right 

126
00:06:31,200 --> 00:06:34,300
ability were duty to control the
activities of a violator. 

127
00:06:34,900 --> 00:06:38,100
It can be distinguished from 
contributory liability, another 

128
00:06:38,100 --> 00:06:41,200
form of secondary liability 
which is rooted in the tort 

129
00:06:41,200 --> 00:06:44,700
theory of Enterprise liability 
because unlike contributory 

130
00:06:44,700 --> 00:06:47,600
infringement knowledge is not an
element of the carrier's 

131
00:06:47,600 --> 00:06:50,200
liability. 
The law has developed a view 

132
00:06:50,200 --> 00:06:52,000
that some Relationships by their
nature. 

133
00:06:52,000 --> 00:06:55,400
Require the person who engages 
others to accept responsibility 

134
00:06:55,400 --> 00:06:57,100
for the wrongdoing of those 
others. 

135
00:06:57,600 --> 00:07:00,600
The most important such 
relationship for Cool purposes. 

136
00:07:00,600 --> 00:07:04,500
Is that of employer and employee
employers liability. 

137
00:07:05,000 --> 00:07:08,800
Employers, are variously liable 
under the respondeat superior 

138
00:07:08,800 --> 00:07:12,400
Doctrine for negligent, Acts or 
omissions by their employees in 

139
00:07:12,400 --> 00:07:15,300
the course of employment. 
Sometimes refer to as scope and 

140
00:07:15,300 --> 00:07:17,900
course of employment. 
To determine whether the 

141
00:07:17,900 --> 00:07:20,300
employer is liable, the 
difference between an 

142
00:07:20,300 --> 00:07:24,100
independent contractor and an 
employee's to be drawn in order 

143
00:07:24,100 --> 00:07:27,000
to be the carius Lee liable. 
There must be a requisite 

144
00:07:27,000 --> 00:07:29,700
relationship between the 
defendant and the tortfeasor. 

145
00:07:29,800 --> 00:07:33,900
Which could be examined by three
tests, control test organization

146
00:07:33,900 --> 00:07:37,400
test and sufficient relationship
test an employer. 

147
00:07:37,400 --> 00:07:40,000
May be held liable under 
principles of Aquarius 

148
00:07:40,000 --> 00:07:42,000
liability. 
If an employee does an 

149
00:07:42,000 --> 00:07:44,300
authorized act in an 
unauthorized way. 

150
00:07:44,800 --> 00:07:48,200
Employers may also be liable 
under the common law principle 

151
00:07:48,200 --> 00:07:51,500
represented in the Latin phrase 
Ki Fateh per volume pocket. 

152
00:07:51,500 --> 00:07:54,300
Per se, one who acts through 
another acts in one's own 

153
00:07:54,300 --> 00:07:57,200
interests. 
That is a parallel concept of a 

154
00:07:57,200 --> 00:07:59,200
curious liability in strict 
liability. 

155
00:07:59,900 --> 00:08:03,100
In which one person is held 
liable in criminal law or tort 

156
00:08:03,100 --> 00:08:06,600
for the acts or omissions of 
another in Australia, the 

157
00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:08,900
sufficient relationship test in 
tailing. 

158
00:08:08,900 --> 00:08:11,900
The balancing of several factors
such as skill, levels required 

159
00:08:11,900 --> 00:08:14,600
in the job, pay schemes and 
degree of control. 

160
00:08:14,600 --> 00:08:18,300
Granted to the worker has been 
the favorite approach for an act

161
00:08:18,300 --> 00:08:20,600
to be considered within the 
course of employment. 

162
00:08:20,600 --> 00:08:23,400
It must either be authorized or 
be so connected with an 

163
00:08:23,400 --> 00:08:25,800
authorized act. 
That it can be considered a mode

164
00:08:25,800 --> 00:08:29,400
though an improper mode of 
performing it Court sometimes. 

165
00:08:29,800 --> 00:08:32,799
English between an employee's 
detour versus a Frolic of their 

166
00:08:32,799 --> 00:08:35,299
own. 
For instance, an employer will 

167
00:08:35,299 --> 00:08:37,600
be held liable. 
If it is shown that the employee

168
00:08:37,600 --> 00:08:40,900
had gone on a mere detour, and 
carrying out their duties such 

169
00:08:40,900 --> 00:08:44,200
as stopping a, by a beverage or 
use an automated teller machine.

170
00:08:44,200 --> 00:08:47,100
While running a work-related 
errand, where is an employee 

171
00:08:47,100 --> 00:08:49,600
acting in their own, right? 
Rather than on the employers 

172
00:08:49,600 --> 00:08:52,400
business is undertaking a Frolic
and will not subject. 

173
00:08:52,400 --> 00:08:56,900
The employer to liability 
principles liability, the owner 

174
00:08:56,900 --> 00:08:59,700
of an automobile can be helped 
the curiously liable for 

175
00:08:59,800 --> 00:09:03,200
Negligence committed by a person
to whom the car has been lent as

176
00:09:03,200 --> 00:09:06,400
if the owner was a principal and
the driver their agent if the 

177
00:09:06,400 --> 00:09:08,900
driver is using the car 
primarily for the purpose of 

178
00:09:08,908 --> 00:09:11,600
performing. 
A task for the owner courts have

179
00:09:11,600 --> 00:09:14,600
been reluctant to extend this 
liability to the owners of other

180
00:09:14,600 --> 00:09:17,700
kinds of chattel. 
For example, the owner of a 

181
00:09:17,700 --> 00:09:20,700
plane will not be the curiously.
Liable for the actions of a 

182
00:09:20,700 --> 00:09:23,500
pilot to whom he or she is 
lended to perform the owners 

183
00:09:23,500 --> 00:09:27,600
purpose in the United States. 
The carrier's liability for 

184
00:09:27,600 --> 00:09:30,400
automobiles has since been 
abolished with respect to car 

185
00:09:30,400 --> 00:09:32,100
Leasing and Rental in all 50 
states. 

186
00:09:32,700 --> 00:09:36,700
One example is in the case of a 
bank finance company or other 

187
00:09:36,700 --> 00:09:39,400
lienholder, performing, a 
repossession of an automobile 

188
00:09:39,400 --> 00:09:41,300
from the registered owner for 
non-payment. 

189
00:09:41,300 --> 00:09:44,700
The lienholder has a 
non-delegable duty Not to cause 

190
00:09:44,700 --> 00:09:47,600
a breach of the peace in 
performing the repossession, or 

191
00:09:47,600 --> 00:09:50,500
it will be liable for damages, 
even if the repossession is 

192
00:09:50,500 --> 00:09:53,700
performed by an agent. 
This requirement means that 

193
00:09:53,700 --> 00:09:56,700
whether a repossession is 
performed by the lienholder or 

194
00:09:56,700 --> 00:09:59,800
by an agent, the repossessor 
must not cause a breach of the 

195
00:09:59,800 --> 00:10:02,500
Peace or the lienholder will be 
held responsible. 

196
00:10:03,000 --> 00:10:05,700
This requirement, not to breach,
the peace has held upon the 

197
00:10:05,700 --> 00:10:08,200
lienholder. 
Even if the breach is caused by 

198
00:10:08,200 --> 00:10:11,300
say the debtors objection to the
repossession, resisting the 

199
00:10:11,300 --> 00:10:14,300
repossession. 
In the court case of mbank El 

200
00:10:14,300 --> 00:10:18,000
Paso where hired repossessor 
towed away a car even after the 

201
00:10:18,000 --> 00:10:20,100
registered owner locked herself 
in it. 

202
00:10:20,200 --> 00:10:23,300
The court decided that this was 
an unlawful breach of the peace 

203
00:10:23,300 --> 00:10:26,500
and declared the repossession. 
Invalid, the debtor was also, 

204
00:10:26,500 --> 00:10:29,700
awarded 1 million two hundred 
thousand dollars in Damages from

205
00:10:29,800 --> 00:10:33,300
Um, the bank, however, notably a
breach of the peace, will 

206
00:10:33,300 --> 00:10:37,400
invariably constitute a criminal
misdemeanor criminal law in part

207
00:10:37,400 --> 00:10:40,600
separate and distinct liability.
Upon each actor, considered a 

208
00:10:40,608 --> 00:10:43,600
person under the law, and 
therefore a corporation and the 

209
00:10:43,600 --> 00:10:46,300
corporation's employee May both 
be charged with having 

210
00:10:46,300 --> 00:10:48,200
committed. 
Exactly the same crime. 

211
00:10:48,400 --> 00:10:51,100
In addition to any civil 
liability for which the law 

212
00:10:51,100 --> 00:10:55,300
imposes, parental liability in 
the United States. 

213
00:10:55,400 --> 00:10:58,000
The question of Parental 
responsibility, generally 

214
00:10:58,000 --> 00:11:01,000
follows the common law principle
that Parent is not civilly, 

215
00:11:01,000 --> 00:11:04,200
liable for injuries, resulting 
from a child's negligence merely

216
00:11:04,200 --> 00:11:06,400
because of a parent-child 
relationship. 

217
00:11:06,700 --> 00:11:10,100
When a child causes an injury, 
parents may be held liable for 

218
00:11:10,100 --> 00:11:13,100
their own negligent, acts such 
as failure to properly, 

219
00:11:13,100 --> 00:11:16,600
supervise a child or failure to 
keep a dangerous instrument such

220
00:11:16,600 --> 00:11:18,900
as a handgun outside, the reach 
of their children. 

221
00:11:19,400 --> 00:11:22,600
Many states have also passed 
laws that impose, some liability

222
00:11:22,600 --> 00:11:25,500
on parents for the intentional 
wrongful acts committed by their

223
00:11:25,500 --> 00:11:30,200
minor children, liability of 
Corporations and tort in English

224
00:11:30,200 --> 00:11:32,300
law. 
A corporation can only act 

225
00:11:32,300 --> 00:11:35,000
through its employees and 
agents, so it is necessary to 

226
00:11:35,000 --> 00:11:37,900
decide in which circumstances 
the law of agency review. 

227
00:11:37,900 --> 00:11:41,400
Curious, liability will apply to
hold the corporation liable in 

228
00:11:41,400 --> 00:11:44,200
tort for the frauds of its 
directors or senior officers. 

229
00:11:44,700 --> 00:11:48,200
If liability for the particular,
tort requires a state of mind, 

230
00:11:48,300 --> 00:11:51,700
then to be liable, the director 
or senior officer must have that

231
00:11:51,700 --> 00:11:53,800
state of mind. 
And it must be attributed to the

232
00:11:53,800 --> 00:11:56,300
company. 
In Meridian, Global funds 

233
00:11:56,300 --> 00:11:59,500
management, Asia limited, for 
example, Securities Commission, 

234
00:11:59,800 --> 00:12:02,700
Employees of the company acting 
within the scope of their 

235
00:12:02,700 --> 00:12:05,000
Authority. 
But unknown to the directors use

236
00:12:05,000 --> 00:12:08,400
company funds to acquire some 
shares, the question was, 

237
00:12:08,400 --> 00:12:11,100
whether the company knew or 
ought to have known that? 

238
00:12:11,100 --> 00:12:14,500
It had acquired those shares, 
the privy Council held that it 

239
00:12:14,500 --> 00:12:17,900
did whether by virtue of their 
actual were ostensibly 

240
00:12:17,900 --> 00:12:20,600
authorities agents acting within
their Authority. 

241
00:12:20,700 --> 00:12:24,600
Refer to Lloyd be Grace Smith 
and company or is employees 

242
00:12:24,600 --> 00:12:27,400
acting in the course of their 
employment, refer to our mock 

243
00:12:27,400 --> 00:12:30,900
has limited be mindaugas their 
Acts and omissions, and their 

244
00:12:30,900 --> 00:12:33,400
knowledge, could be attributed 
to the company, and this would 

245
00:12:33,400 --> 00:12:36,800
give rise to liability is joint.
Tortfeasors were the directors 

246
00:12:36,800 --> 00:12:40,100
have assumed responsibility on 
their own behalf and not just on

247
00:12:40,100 --> 00:12:43,500
behalf of the company. 
So if a director or officer is 

248
00:12:43,500 --> 00:12:46,600
expressly authorized to make 
representations of a particular 

249
00:12:46,600 --> 00:12:49,500
class on behalf of the company 
and fraudulently makes a 

250
00:12:49,500 --> 00:12:52,800
representation of that class to 
a third-party causing loss, the 

251
00:12:52,800 --> 00:12:55,200
company will be liable. 
Even though the particular 

252
00:12:55,200 --> 00:12:57,900
representation was an improper 
way of doing what he was 

253
00:12:57,900 --> 00:13:01,600
authorized to do the End of 
authority is a question of fact 

254
00:13:01,600 --> 00:13:04,300
and is significantly more than 
the fact of an employment, which

255
00:13:04,300 --> 00:13:06,600
gave the employee the 
opportunity to carry out the 

256
00:13:06,600 --> 00:13:11,100
fraud in Panorama developments 
Guilford, limited V Fedele's 

257
00:13:11,100 --> 00:13:14,500
Furnishing Fabrics limited. 
A company secretary fraudulently

258
00:13:14,500 --> 00:13:16,900
hired cars for his own use 
without the knowledge of the 

259
00:13:16,900 --> 00:13:20,200
managing director. 
A company secretary routinely 

260
00:13:20,200 --> 00:13:22,700
enters into contracts in the 
company's name and has 

261
00:13:22,700 --> 00:13:25,200
administrative responsibilities.
That would give apparent 

262
00:13:25,200 --> 00:13:29,600
authority to hire cars. 
Hence, the company was liable in

263
00:13:29,700 --> 00:13:33,300
Employees, continued, liability,
and indemnity a common 

264
00:13:33,300 --> 00:13:36,100
misconception, involves the 
liability of the employee. 

265
00:13:36,100 --> 00:13:38,800
For tortious acts committed 
within the scope and authority 

266
00:13:38,800 --> 00:13:41,800
of their employment. 
Although the employer is liable 

267
00:13:41,800 --> 00:13:44,900
under respondeat Superior for 
the employees conduct the 

268
00:13:44,900 --> 00:13:48,500
employee to remains jointly 
liable for the harm caused. 

269
00:13:48,900 --> 00:13:51,700
As the American law Institute. 
SRI statement of the law of 

270
00:13:51,700 --> 00:13:55,100
agency third section. 7.01 
States. 

271
00:13:55,900 --> 00:13:59,200
An agent is subject to liability
to a third party harmed by the 

272
00:13:59,800 --> 00:14:03,200
Tortious conduct unless an 
applicable statute provides. 

273
00:14:03,200 --> 00:14:06,200
Otherwise an actor remains 
subject to liability. 

274
00:14:06,200 --> 00:14:09,900
Although the actor acts as an 
agent or an employee with actual

275
00:14:09,900 --> 00:14:13,500
or apparent Authority or within 
the scope of employment, every 

276
00:14:13,500 --> 00:14:16,900
American state follows this same
rule, the question of 

277
00:14:16,900 --> 00:14:20,000
indemnification arises, when 
either solely the employee or 

278
00:14:20,000 --> 00:14:24,100
solely, the employers suit, if 
only the employee is sued, then 

279
00:14:24,100 --> 00:14:26,400
that employee May seek 
indemnification from the 

280
00:14:26,400 --> 00:14:29,400
employer, the conduct was within
the course and scope of their 

281
00:14:29,400 --> 00:14:31,900
employment. 
Ointment if only the employer is

282
00:14:31,900 --> 00:14:35,200
sued, then the employer can 
attempt to avoid liability by 

283
00:14:35,200 --> 00:14:38,200
claiming the employees conduct 
was outside of the scope of the 

284
00:14:38,200 --> 00:14:40,800
employees Authority. 
But the employer generally 

285
00:14:40,800 --> 00:14:42,700
cannot sue the employee to 
recover. 

286
00:14:42,700 --> 00:14:46,200
Indemnification for the 
employees, torts for an example 

287
00:14:46,200 --> 00:14:48,200
of a court. 
Confirming an employer's, right 

288
00:14:48,200 --> 00:14:50,800
to sue an employee. 
For indemnification, see the 

289
00:14:50,800 --> 00:14:53,700
case of Lister V, Romford, ice 
and Cold Storage Company. 

290
00:14:53,700 --> 00:14:58,300
Limited ecclesiastical 
corporations in the 2003 

291
00:14:58,300 --> 00:15:01,200
decision do for example. 
Oh Bennett the Supreme Court of 

292
00:15:01,200 --> 00:15:04,000
Canada ruled that in cases of 
abuse scandals involving 

293
00:15:04,000 --> 00:15:07,200
Catholic priests liability 
derives, from the power and 

294
00:15:07,200 --> 00:15:09,000
authority over. 
Parishioners that the church 

295
00:15:09,000 --> 00:15:10,200
gave to its clergyman