Vicarious Liability

News & Analysis as of

Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit (CAFC) Issues Decision In U.S. v. Trek Leather – Corporate Officer Held Liable

Yesterday, the CAFC issued its en banc decision in the U.S. v. Trek Leather case. The Court held the President of the company liable for gross negligence due to his own actions, even if he is an agent of the company....more

California Supreme Court Overturns 2012 Domino's Decision

On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court reversed a 2012 Court of Appeal decision in Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC. The lower court held that franchise operating systems, like Domino's, deprive franchisees of the...more

Did You Know…California Supreme Court Rules – No Franchisor Vicarious Liability

The California Supreme Court recently held in Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. S204543 (Cal. Aug. 28, 2014) that a franchisor could not be held vicariously liable under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act...more

California Employment Law Notes

Franchisor Is Not Liable For Franchisee's Alleged Sexual Harassment Of Its Employee - Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 2014 WL 4236175 (Cal. S. Ct. 2014) - Taylor Patterson was hired by Sui Juris (a franchisee...more

California Supreme Court Clarifies When a Franchisee's Employees Can Bring Employment Claims Against the Franchisor in Taylor...

In Taylor Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, the California Supreme Court restricted the ability of a franchisee’s employees to sue the franchisor based on theories of vicarious liability and the theory that the franchisor was...more

IP Newsflash - September 2014

Federal Circuit Remands for Reconsideration of $6.6 Million Attorney Fees Award On September 4, 2014, the Federal Circuit remanded a case to the district court to reconsider an attorney fees award in light of the Supreme...more

Domino’s Pizza is Not Vicariously Liable for Acts of a Franchise Employee Where Domino’s Lacks Control Over Employee, Says...

Domino’s Pizza This week, the California Supreme Court held that Domino’s Pizza was not liable for the torts of an employee of a franchise because Domino’s had no contractual or operational control over the employee. The...more

The FCC’s declaratory ruling re TCPA vicarious liability – one year later, trends and takeaways

A year ago, we reported on the FCC’s Declaratory Ruling that addressed the issue of whether parties who did not actually place telemarketing robocalls could be either directly or vicariously liable for calls made on their...more

Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC: Franchisors Are Not Vicariously Liable as “Employers” or “Principals” for Their Franchisees’...

In a significant win for franchisors, the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that although Domino’s “imposes comprehensive and meticulous standards for marketing its trademarked brand and operating its franchises in a uniform...more

#Insurance Coverage for Emerging Social Media Risks

There are 1.3 billion people on Facebook, half a billion “tweets” every day, and countless other ways to communicate that did not even exist five years ago. In response to this social media revolution, smart companies are...more

Who's in Control Here? California's Supreme Court Establishes New Standards for Potential Franchisor Liability for Employee Tort...

On August 28, 2014, the Supreme Court of California, in Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, decided whether a franchisor was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims that the franchisor was vicariously liable for...more

Landmark Ruling: Franchisor Not Liable Absent Employment Related Control

On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in favor of Domino's Pizza and all business format franchisors that do business in California. In Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, ---P.3d---, 2014 WL...more

California Supreme Court: Holding Franchisor Liable as Employer Depends on Level of Control Over Day-to-Day Employment Decisions

Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. S204543 (August 28, 2014): On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that a franchisor that did not exhibit the characteristics of an “employer” was not...more

New Hampshire Court Dismisses Negligent Hiring and Retention Claims as Redundant of Motor Carrier’s Vicarious Liability

A New Hampshire trial court recently ruled that negligent hiring and retention claims asserted against a motor carrier on behalf of persons seriously injured in a multi-vehicle accident are redundant of the motor carrier’s...more

NLRB Will Charge McDonald’s as “Joint Employer” For Franchisee Labor Violations

In a move with far-reaching ramifications for all businesses that license their brands to independent contractors including franchisees, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) announced on July 29, 2014 that it has...more

First Ontario Privacy Class Action Certified Against Employer via Vicarious Liability

In Evans v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2014 ONSC 2135, Justice Smith certified a class action for, among other claims, the tort of inclusion upon seclusion, against both the Bank of Nova Scotia (the “Bank”) and Richard Wilson. This...more

Ninth Circuit Defines Vicarious Liability Standard Under the TCPA

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a US District Court for the Central District of California decision dismissing a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claim. The Ninth Circuit agreed with...more

Not My Brother’s Keeper: Varley v. Regional School District No. 4 and A School District’s Responsibility For “Free Speech” Claims...

When entering into contacts with vendors, school districts hope that 1) the vendor will comply with the law, and 2) in any event, the vendor will be responsible for its own employment-related disputes. In Varley v. Regional...more

Court Rejects Vicarious Liability Under Georgia Boating Law

The State Court of Dekalb County, Georgia recently held that companies operating in the boat rental business cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their rental customers. Carol Morris v. Yaaqov...more

Discrimination – Vicarious Liability Gets More Expensive

The full bench of the Federal Court in Richardson v Oracle Corporation Australia (Richardson) has cited changing community standards as a basis for significantly increasing awards for general damages (ie damages for...more

Advertising Law - July 2014 #2

Ninth Circuit Finds No TCPA Vicarious Liability for Taco Bell for Texts Sent By Franchisee - On July 2, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished decision in Thomas v. Taco Bell Corp. that is certain to give heart...more

Corporate and Financial Weekly Digest - Volume IX, Issue 28

In this issue: - FINRA Proposes to Adopt Rules on Quotation Requirements for OTC Equity Securities - CFTC Seeks Comment on ICE Clear Europe Portfolio Margining Proposal - New York DFS Proposes First...more

Ninth Circuit Thinks Inside the Bun, Applies Traditional Agency Principles To Dismiss Putative TCPA Class Action Claims Against...

In Thomas v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 12-56458 (9th Cir. July 2, 2014) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that Taco Bell, one defendant in a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone...more

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals TCPA Ruling: Thomas v. Taco Bell Corporation

In Thomas v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 12-56458 (9th Cir. June 6, 2014), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of Defendant Taco Bell Corporation, holding that Taco Bell could not be held liable as...more

Is The Employee Who Injured Me Responsible for My Injuries?

A tort is a civil wrong that causes an individual to suffer harm, loss, or other injury. Generally speaking, the person who commits the tortious act is legally responsible for the victim's injuries. The theory of tort law...more

104 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5