For employer’s indemnity, vicarious

For employer’s indemnity, vicarious liability makes employer and employee joint tortfeasors, each fully liable to the claimant, an employer who is sued on the basis of vicarious liability is entitled to sue the employee in turn, and recover some damages paid for the employee’s tort. This is called an indemnity, and the employer’s entitlement to sue may derive either from the provisions of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, or in common law under the principle in Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage (1957). In that case, a lorry driver drove negligently in the course of his employment, and ran over his father, who was also employed by the company. The father recovered damages on the basis of the employer’s vicarious liability for the driver’s negligence; the damages were paid by the employer’s insurers. The employer then exercised its right to sue the driver for an indemnity. The House of Lords held that the lorry drivers negligent driving was not only a tort against his father, but also a breach of an implied term in his employment contract, to the effect that he would exercise reasonable care in performing his contractual duties. It was decided that the employer was entitled to damages equivalent to the amount which it had had to pay to the father.

สำหรับการชดใช้ค่าเสียหายของนายจ้างรับผิดชะลอทำให้นายจ้างและลูกจ้าง tortfeasors ร่วมแต่ละคนต้องรับผิดอย่างเต็มที่ที่จะเรียกร้องให้นายจ้างที่มีการฟ้องบนพื้นฐานของความรับผิดชะลอมีสิทธิที่จะฟ้องพนักงานในการเปิดและการกู้คืนความเสียหายบางส่วนจ่ายสำหรับการละเมิดของพนักงาน นี้เรียกว่าการชดใช้ค่าเสียหายและสิทธิของนายจ้างที่จะฟ้องอาจเป็นผลมาจากทั้งบทบัญญัติของความรับผิดทางแพ่ง (สมทบ) พ.ศ. 1978 หรือในกฎหมายภายใต้หลักการใน Lister วี Romford น้ำแข็งและเย็น (1957) ในกรณีที่ขับรถบรรทุกขับรถประมาทเลินเล่อในหลักสูตรของการจ้างงานของเขาและวิ่งไปที่พ่อของเขาที่ยังเป็นลูกจ้าง บริษัท พ่อกู้คืนความเสียหายบนพื้นฐานของความรับผิดของนายจ้างชะลอเพราะความประมาทของคนขับรถ; ความเสียหายที่ได้รับเงินจาก บริษัท ประกันของนายจ้าง นายจ้างแล้วใช้สิทธิที่จะฟ้องขับสำหรับการชดใช้ค่าเสียหาย สภาขุนนางถือได้ว่าเป็นคนขับรถบรรทุกขับรถประมาทไม่ได้เป็นเพียงการละเมิดกับบิดาของตน แต่ยังฝ่าฝืนคำโดยนัยไว้ในสัญญาจ้างงานของเขาเป็นผลของการที่เขาจะใช้ความระมัดระวังที่เหมาะสมในการปฏิบัติหน้าที่ตามสัญญาของเขา ก็ตัดสินใจว่านายจ้างก็มีสิทธิ์ที่จะเกิดความเสียหายเทียบเท่ากับจำนวนเงินที่จะได้มีการจ่ายเงินเพื่อพ่อ

Results (English) 1:

For employer's indemnity, vicarious liability makes employer and employee joint tortfeasors, each fully liable to the claimant, an employer who is sued on the basis of vicarious liability is entitled to sue the employee in turn, and recover some damages paid for the employee's tort. This is called an indemnity, and the employer's entitlement to sue may derive either from the provisions of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, or in common law under the principle in Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage (1957). In that case, a lorry driver drove negligently in the course of his employment, and ran over his father, who was also employed by the company. The father recovered damages on the basis of the employer's vicarious liability for the driver's negligence; the damages were paid by the employer's insurers. The employer then exercised its right to sue the driver for an indemnity. The House of Lords held that the lorry drivers negligent driving was not only a tort against his father, but also a breach of an implied term in his employment contract, to the effect that he would exercise reasonable care in performing his contractual duties. It was decided that the employer was entitled to damages equivalent to the amount which it had had to pay to the father.For the damage of the employer liable for delay to employers and employees. Each joint tortfeasors be liable to claims to an employer who has been sued on the basis of liability for delay are entitled to sue employees to open and recover some damages for breach of this employee called to pay damages and the rights of Mr. C.That will probably sue as a result of the provisions of the civil liability (contribution) Act 1978 or 1982 under the principle in Lister v Romford ice & cold (1957), in the case of driving the truck drove to the loenloe in the course of his employment, and ran to his father at a re.Nalukchang father's company to recover damages on the basis of the employer's liability for delay because of the negligence of the driver; the damage received from the employer's insurance company, employer, and then use the right to sue for the damage. Council of the nobility regarded as careless driving, truck driver is not only a violation to their father. But it is also in violation of the implied term in the employment contract as a result of his actions that he will use appropriate caution when performing duties according to his contract. It decided that the employer has the right to damages equivalent to the amount that would have been paid to the father.

Results (English) 2:

For employer's indemnity, vicarious liability makes employer and employee joint tortfeasors, each fully liable to the claimant, an employer who is sued on the basis of vicarious liability is entitled to sue the employee in turn, and recover some damages paid for the employee's tort. This is called an indemnity, and the employer's entitlement to sue may derive either from the provisions of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, or in common law under the principle in Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage (1957). In that case. , a lorry driver drove negligently in the course of his employment, and ran over his father, who was also employed by the company. The father recovered damages on the basis of the employer's vicarious liability for the driver's negligence; the damages were paid by the. employer's insurers. The employer then exercised its right to sue the driver for an indemnity. The House of Lords held that the lorry drivers negligent driving was not only a tort against his father, but also a breach of an implied term in his employment contract,. to the effect that he would exercise reasonable care in performing his contractual duties. It was decided that the employer was entitled to damages equivalent to the amount which it had had to pay to the father. For indemnify the employer's liability for delay makes employers. Each joint tortfeasors liable employed fully to calls for employers to sue on the basis of liability has slowed right to sue employees to open and to recover some damages for breach of the employee. This is known as indemnity and the right of employers to be sued as a result of the provisions of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 or under the law in Lister v Romford Ice & Cold (1957) in. If the truck driver drove recklessly in the course of his employment, and ran to his father, who was also employed by the company's recovery of damages based on the liability of employers slowed because of the negligence of the driver; The damage was paid by the employer's insurance company. The employer then take a right to sue for damages. The House of Lords held that a truck driver, careless driving is not only a violation against his father. But implicit in breach of his employment contract as a result of which he will use appropriate caution in carrying out his duties under the contract. It was decided that the employer was entitled to damages equivalent to the amount it has paid to the father.

Results (English) 3:

For employer ', s indemnity vicarious liability makes employer and employee joint tortfeasors each fully, liable to, the claimant. An employer who is sued on the basis of vicarious liability is entitled to sue the employee, in turn and recover some damages. Paid for the employee 's tort. This is called, an indemnityAnd the employer 's entitlement to sue may derive either from the provisions of the Civil Liability (Contribution), Act 1978 or. In common law under the principle in Lister V Romford Ice and Cold Storage (1957). In that case a lorry, driver drove negligently. In the course of, his employment and ran over his father who was, also employed by the company.The father recovered damages on the basis of the employer 's vicarious liability for the driver' s negligence; the damages. Were paid by the employer 's insurers. The employer then exercised its right to sue the driver for an indemnity. The House. Of Lords held that the lorry drivers negligent driving was not only a tort against, his fatherBut also a breach of an implied term in his, employment contract to the effect that he would exercise reasonable care in. Performing his contractual duties. It was decided that the employer was entitled to damages equivalent to the amount which. It had had to pay to the father.

.For the compensation of employers liability to the employer and employee, tortfeasors slowThis is called the compensation and the right of the employer to sue may result from both the provisions of civil liability (Contributions).Prof.1978 or in law under the principle of Lister V Romford ice and cold (1957) in the case of a truck driver driving recklessly lauenburg le in the course of his employment and ran to his father's employees. Company.The damage received money from the insurance companies of the employer. The employer and the right to sue drive for indemnity. The house of Lords is regarded as a trucker driving recklessly is not only a breach with his father.It was decided that the employer has the right to damage equivalent to amount to have to pay money for.