Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 319: Spotlight on Torts (Part 3 – Strict and Vicarious Liability)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 390: Listen and Learn -- Vicarious Liability (Torts)
Life With GDPR: Episode 41-Morrisons at the UK Supreme Court
Life With GDPR: Episode 22- Morrisons’ and vicarious liability
Potential for Vicarious Liability Under the Graves Amendment
Should employers be liable in tort for their employees’ sexual assaults? Until recently, the universal answer was a resounding “no.” After all, an employer is only liable for their employees’ actions when the employee is...more
Most employers understand their obligation to prevent discrimination and harassment at work, and the significant consequences that can come if such treatment is allowed to occur. But what if an employee alleges harassment not...more
On August 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled an employer is not liable for harassment of an employee by a third party unless the employer intended for the harassment to occur. This stark departure...more
In an explicit departure from EEOC guidance and other federal court caselaw, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that an employer can only be liable for a client/customer’s harassment of its...more
The American Law Institute approved a controversial new provision of the Restatement of Torts, Third expanding vicarious liability to employers for certain sexual assaults committed by employees against third parties who are...more
U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - USA v. Zayas - currency transaction report, filing - Cunningham v. Cobb - § 1983, qualified immunity...more
An EAT decision this month emphasised that employers should be proactive when looking for suitable alternative employment for employees in a redundancy situation. The High Court considered whether a business was vicariously...more
U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - Hicks v. Middleton - vicarious liability, employment, course and scope - UHS v. Sec’y of Labor - OSHA, workplace violence, employer - JF v. Carnival - negligence, cruise,...more
In a controversial decision, the American Law Institute (ALI) approved a novel “Special Rule on Vicarious Liability for Sexual Assault” that endorses a new strict liability tort claim against employers for certain sexual...more
Campo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2025 WL 15388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) - Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Uber Technologies, Inc. and affiliated defendants (collectively Uber), holding Uber...more
Sterry v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, 8 N.W.3d 224 (Minn. 2024) places Minnesota governmental employers on the same footing as private employers for the purposes of vicarious liability. The State, cities, and...more
A recent Florida appellate decision offers a valuable blueprint for insurers and corporate legal teams seeking to limit exposure in questionable vicarious liability claims. In Campo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., the Third...more
A federal court in North Dakota recently denied a motion to dismiss vicarious liability claims against the corporate entities constituting the Subway franchise system. C.S. v. Subway Worldwide, Inc., 2025 WL 472475 (D.N.D....more
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued another important ruling for brokers, upholding that a claim for negligent hiring against a freight broker was preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration...more
The Serrano/Ducksworth defense. If you know what I’m referring to, you don’t need to read any further. But if you don’t, well, please read on....more
On August 1, 2024, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in O’Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities that the definition of “supervisor” set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University to...more
In a win for employers, the Connecticut Supreme Court defines “supervisor” narrowly for purposes of vicarious employer liability under Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act - Under Connecticut’s civil rights law, an...more
A “supervisor,” for purposes of a Connecticut state hostile work environment claim, is an employee who is empowered by an employer to take tangible employment actions, the Connecticut Supreme Court recently held in O’Reggio...more
In Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Ari, 2023 BCCA 331, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) confirmed that an employer may be found vicariously liable when its employee violates of s. 1 of the province’s...more
On December 30, 2022, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cameron International Corporation v. Martinez, __ S.W.3d __, 2022 WL __ (Tex. Dec. 30, 2022) (per curiam) (“Cameron”). The opinion addresses vicarious...more
Employee filed action against company vice president for sexual harassment and sexual assault, and against company for vicarious liability for the sexual harassment. Court confirmed that sexual harassment is not an...more
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released a decision, Incognito v. Skyservice Business Aviation Inc., 2022 ONSC 1795 (“Skyservice”), in which it struck out a Plaintiff’s claim for vicarious liability against her...more
A California Court of Appeals affirmed an employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment on that question, finding that the employer was not vicariously liable in a recent opinion. The case involves Clanisha Villegas, who worked for...more
On May 18, 2021, in McBride v. Atlantic Chrysler Jeep, the New Jersey Appellate Division revived a Sales Consultant’s hostile work environment case against a car dealership after the Law Division previously dismissed it in...more
Only joking – employer not vicariously liable for practical joke - In Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd employees of Roltech Engineering were contracted to work alongside Tarmac employees at a site, resulting in some...more