On 3/20/2012 1:20 PM, David Shemano wrote: > > 6. As I have pointed out before, the real "fee" that corporations pay for > limited liability is not taxes, but the doctrine of respondeat > superior/vicarious liability, which makes the assets of the corporation > liable for the torts of employees, even if the owners of the corporation did > nothing wrongful and have no direct liability. My guess is that if owners > have unlimited personal liability for the torts of employees as opposed to > limited liability, the common law (and legislation) will trend to > significantly limit respondeat superior/vicarious liability, because the > consequences, as manifested in specific stories and cases, will be deemed > unjust to the innocent owners. >
I'm not sure that this would be such a bad thing. To the degree that the doctrine is rooted in a superior/subordinate framework, weakening it's use may also weaken the employer's power within the employment relationship. As I understand it, vicarious liability applies to the employee-employer relationship because the employer has the right to direct the manner in which the work is accomplished. If an employee could be held legally responsible for, say, acts of employment discrimination, then perhaps that employee will not choose to "serve the employer's purpose." _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
