Vicarious Liability or Liability for the Acts of Others in Tort: A Comparative Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the author examines from a comparative perspective the nature of vicarious liability in tort (or liability for the acts of others, to use civilian terminology). She notes a common legal framework, crossing common and civil law boundaries, and focuses on three key questions in determining the scope of this form of strict liability: Should liability be strict or fault-based? Which relationships should give rise to liability and, bearing in mind the disintegration of traditional working patterns, should liability be extended to temporary or agency workers? When should a tort be considered in the ‘course of employment’, dans les fonctions auxquelles ils les ont employés or in Ausführung der Verrichtung? In examining these key questions with reference to case-law from the common law (England and Wales, Canada, Australia) and the civil law (France, Germany), together with examination of the relevant provisions of the Principles of European Tort Law and the Draft Common Frame of Reference, the author argues that a comparative perspective increases our understanding of core principle, and helps us to appreciate the factors which influence legal development, in addition to suggesting possible models for reform.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".