Personal liability, vicarious liability, non-delegable duties and protecting vulnerable people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A policy concern underlying the imposition on defendants of a liability in tort which influences the courts, sometimes expressly and sometimes implicitly, is a need to protect and assist persons who may be seen to have been in a vulnerable position at the time they suffered injury or harm. Leading decisions concerning the imposition on defendants of a duty of care in negligence, of vicarious liability in respect of the deliberate or negligent actions of another person, and of a duty which cannot be delegated to another person, all have given expression to, and support for, a concept of plaintiff vulnerability. Indeed, recent decisions in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia concerning the abuse of children by persons in a position of power and authority and which significantly extend the reach of vicarious liability provide particularly apt examples. The aim of this article is to show how the three different kinds of claim can provide a remedy for vulnerable people and to identify any links and overlaps between them. Certainly it is apparent that the idea of vulnerability can provide helpful guidance for a court faced with a novel or borderline question of liability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".