«It will always be safer and more profitable for a man to run his business vicariously than by himself. He would escape responsibility for the consequences of many actions related to his business and arising from the imperfections of human nature, because they were made by another for which he would be responsible if it were done himself. In the meantime, the public, forced to act or contact its agent, must be left completely uncompensated for the damage caused by it. It could transfer to financially irresponsible persons the custody of large factories, extensive mines, ships at sea or railways on land, and these persons could, using the extensive power thus conferred on them, inflict gratuitous and malicious damage on third parties, without restrictions other than those resulting from the imperfect execution of criminal laws. A doctrine that was so fruitful for evil could not remain unshakable for long in enlightened jurisprudence. This court has often held the captain accountable, even if the officer was intentional, if it had been committed in the course of his employment. [quote] The dispute arose from Carey`s actual transaction to the scene and, according to the plaintiff`s evidence, the employer`s instruction not to receive cash until prior to delivery. This chapter identifies the existing law in which behavioural dependency is relevant to court decisions. It is these areas of law that are most likely to be affected by DSM-5 recognition of behavioral dependence as a diagnostic category. While it is difficult to predict future legal developments or harmonize the different bodies of U.S. federal law and the laws of all 50 states, a discussion of the potential legal significance of behavioral addiction has value.
Advice is provided by reviewing existing laws that have considered or may consider behavioral addiction as a relevant legal issue. Since the legal decisions to be discussed are generally considered expert opinions of psychotherapists, the chapter concludes with a discussion of expert statements in such cases. In general, the Lord`s primary responsibility for unlawful physical conduct by a staff member, as discussed in Chapter 11, «Client-Agent Relations.» If the officer acted in the performance of his duties, that is, if the officer`s fault occurred in the performance of his duties, the gentleman is liable to the victim for damages, unless, as we have seen, the victim is another worker, in which case the workers` compensation system is invoked. Tort liability is primarily a function of the employment relationship and not of the status of representation. Now, let`s say the developer tries to cancel the deal. Who can sellers sue? The developer and agents are responsible for this. The fact that the sellers did not know the identity of the promoter – or even that there was a promoter – does not invalidate the contract. If the sellers first sue Agent Betty (or Clem), they can still claim the purchase price from the developer as long as they didn`t know his identity before winning the first lawsuit.
The proponent is exempt from liability if the plaintiffs, knowing his identity, insist on taking legal action against the agents and nevertheless obtain a judgment against them. Likewise, representatives are exempt from liability if the seller sues the customer and asks for a judgment. The seller thus has the «choice» to sue either the agent or the undisclosed principal, a right that can be exercised in many states at any time before the seller recovers judgment. There is one approach to providing gun protection at the health centre without arming regular security personnel, and that is to hire law enforcement officers outside of duty hours. Although this is an expensive approach, the health center can avoid the problem of training and some degree of responsibility by applying this model. What can be problematic with this approach, however, is that training and accountability cannot be avoided at all, as the selection of the specific official who works outside the service is often beyond the control of the organization.