Business Law in Canada for Vicarious Liability †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Business Law in Canada Vicarious Liability. Answer: Introduction In order to ensure that clients are protected by businesses, their is the need to ensure that there is a clear structure that has been put in place to guarantee the same. Vicarious liability is one of the doctrines that has been put in place in order to ensure that mistakes that are made by employees while in the course of their duty are placed on the businesses. This ensures that employers are able to manage their employee effectively in order to ensure that no mistakes are realized as a result of the same. Vicarious liability does not expose businesses to too much liability. This is because employers must be able to bear the burden of the problems that they create. In this case therefore, it is essential to understand that as an employer one should be able to bear the responsibility of what should happen to their clients as a result of their employees actions (Nickels et al., 2010). Employees are part of the business and any harm that they cause during their delivery of services, businesses must be able to take the responsibility of the same. One of the arguments that can be adopted in order to try and understand the stand id whereby the employer takes credit for the good deeds of the employee. It is important to understand that whenever a client performs well the business benefits as a result of profits and good reputation that come with the same. Therefore, the same should be applied when employees act in a negligent manner. The employer must understand that by employing a person the y are taking risk and in any case there is any liability that arises as a result of the employees the same should be transferred to them. The other reason as to why vicarious liability should not be viewed as a way of placing too much liability on businesses is the fact that it places incentives to employers during recruitment and training of employees (Yates Clarke, 2002). Employers must be able to ensure that all their employees are trained to the required standards in order to prevent any harm that may be caused by them to clients. In the Tradif v. Wiebe case, the bouncer had not been trained on how to handle clients in case a conflict arose. It is important to note that this was a failure on the managements part which would eventually resonate as a result of events that would later occur. It is important to note that the liability should lie on the hotels management due to the placing their clients at risk of being harmed as a result of the unprofessional behavior by their boun cers. The other reason as to why the pressure placed on businesses as a result of vicarious liability is not too much for them to handle is due to the fact that they have deeper pockets as compared to the employees. Most of the employees just depend on their salaries while the businesses they work for rake in millions in terms of profit. Therefore, in order to ensure that the party that suffers damages is reinstated to their initial position, the employer is at a better position to reimburse the same. It is important to understand that in some situations it is not the employers failure but as a reason to that of the employee (Yates, 2012). Therefore, it is important for the courts to decide in which cases that the liability lays with the employer or rather the employee. In any case the failure is as a result of the employees negligence it is wise that they should pay for the damages themselves. However, if the failure is a result of the employers negligence then it is wise that the same is reimbursed by them. A good case is whereby the management did not train the bouncer on how to handle drunken customers. The hotels management is tasked with ensuring that all its employees are of the highest professional conduct before hiring this in order to ensure that the clients are safe forms any life- threatening situations (Bowal Bontorin, 2014). Therefore the vicarious liability in this case should be transferred to the hotel, since in reference to the evidence presented so far it shows that the hotels management should be held liable of damage caused. It is important to understand that is far as bouncers are concerned they just have the same rights as ordinary citizens (Fudge et al., 2003). Therefore, they should understand that they are not allowed to break thelaw and claim to be undertaking their duties. As far as thelaw goes, bouncers are only required to request one to leave the club in any case they become rowdy. Therefore, in any case the bouncer injures a person, they should be able to suffer the consequences just like any other private citizens. However bouncers can claim self- defense in any case one becomes rowdy and threatens to harm them. It must also be noted that if one breaks thelaw sometimes the employer should not always for their employees criminal acts if they are doing the same for their self- interests. As the court, stated in the case of Tradif v. Wiebe the bouncer was just trying to impress his employer and therefore working outside the mandate of his duties which is to request the customer out and went ahea d to punch him causing injury. Conclusion As it has been noted above, vicarious liability does not place too much liability to businesses. It is essential for employers to ensure that their employees effectively handle their clients in order to minimize any risk that may be imminent. It must also be understood that bouncers do not have equal power to police officers. Therefore, they should not be allowed to harass people while on duty to a point whereby damage is realized. This should be blamed on the employer who should be able to train their employees on how to behave and handle clients. References Nickels, W. G., McHugh, J. M., McHugh, S. M., Cossa, R., Sproule, B. (2010). Understanding Canadian Business.McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto, ON. Yates, R. A. (2012).Legal Fundamentals for Canadian Business. Pearson Education Canada. Fudge, J., Tucker, E., Vosko, L. F. (2003). Employee or Independent Contractor-Charting the Legal Significance of the Distinction in Canada.Canadian Lab. Emp. LJ,10, 193. Yates, R., Bereznicki-Korol, T., Clarke, T. (2002).Businesslaw in Canada. Scarborough, Ont.: Prentice Hall. Tardif v.Wiebe 1996 Carswell B.C. 2438(B.C.S.C.) Bowal, P., Bontorin, L. (2014). Vicarious Liability: The Legal Responsibility of Employers.