连带责任和授权:巴里见证会受托人诉 BXB

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1111/1468-2230.12877
Christine Beuermann
{"title":"连带责任和授权:巴里见证会受托人诉 BXB","authors":"Christine Beuermann","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In <jats:italic>Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses</jats:italic> v <jats:italic>BXB</jats:italic>, the Supreme Court held that there was a single approach to determining all cases of vicarious liability. No ‘tailoring’ of that approach was required either because the defendant was a religious organisation or because the tort in question was sexual abuse. It followed that the Court of Appeal had erred in placing significance on the authority conferred by the defendant on the tortfeasor to guide the behaviour of the claimant when determining vicarious liability. This note explores whether there is any role for conferred authority after <jats:italic>Barry</jats:italic>. To accommodate distinctions in the existing cases and contain further unwarranted expansion, it is argued that it is necessary to recognise a discrete form of strict liability for the tort of another, distinct from vicarious liability, that responds to the potential for conferred authority to be abused.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":"47 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vicarious Liability and Conferred Authority: Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Witnesses v BXB\",\"authors\":\"Christine Beuermann\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-2230.12877\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In <jats:italic>Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses</jats:italic> v <jats:italic>BXB</jats:italic>, the Supreme Court held that there was a single approach to determining all cases of vicarious liability. No ‘tailoring’ of that approach was required either because the defendant was a religious organisation or because the tort in question was sexual abuse. It followed that the Court of Appeal had erred in placing significance on the authority conferred by the defendant on the tortfeasor to guide the behaviour of the claimant when determining vicarious liability. This note explores whether there is any role for conferred authority after <jats:italic>Barry</jats:italic>. To accommodate distinctions in the existing cases and contain further unwarranted expansion, it is argued that it is necessary to recognise a discrete form of strict liability for the tort of another, distinct from vicarious liability, that responds to the potential for conferred authority to be abused.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47530,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Modern Law Review\",\"volume\":\"47 1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Modern Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12877\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12877","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在耶和华见证会巴里公理会受托人诉 BXB 一案中,最高法院认为有一种单一的方法来确定所有替代责任案件。无论是因为被告是一个宗教组织,还是因为所涉侵权行为是性虐待,都不需要对该方法进行 "量身定制"。因此,上诉法院在确定替代责任时,重视被告赋予侵权人的权力以指导原告行为的做法是错误的。本说明探讨了在巴里案之后授予的权力是否还有任何作用。为了适应现有案例中的区别并遏制进一步的无理扩张,本文认为有必要承认一种有别于替代责任的针对他人侵权行为的独立的严格责任形式,以应对授予的权力被滥用的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Vicarious Liability and Conferred Authority: Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Witnesses v BXB
In Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v BXB, the Supreme Court held that there was a single approach to determining all cases of vicarious liability. No ‘tailoring’ of that approach was required either because the defendant was a religious organisation or because the tort in question was sexual abuse. It followed that the Court of Appeal had erred in placing significance on the authority conferred by the defendant on the tortfeasor to guide the behaviour of the claimant when determining vicarious liability. This note explores whether there is any role for conferred authority after Barry. To accommodate distinctions in the existing cases and contain further unwarranted expansion, it is argued that it is necessary to recognise a discrete form of strict liability for the tort of another, distinct from vicarious liability, that responds to the potential for conferred authority to be abused.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
期刊最新文献
Using AI to Mitigate the Employee Misclassification Problem StinePiilgaardPorner Nielsen and OleHammerslev (eds), Transformations of European Welfare States and Social Rights: Regulation, Professionals, and Citizens, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024, x + 226, pb £34.99 and open access Performative Environmental Law Thinking Legally about Remedy in Judicial Review: R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon Legal Parenthood, Novel Reproductive Practices, and the Disruption of Reproductive Biosex
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1