坏苹果坏了桶:各种索赔人诉Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc后替代责任的动机和密切联系测试

Q3 Social Sciences
Joshua Yeung, Kevin S. M. Bae
{"title":"坏苹果坏了桶:各种索赔人诉Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc后替代责任的动机和密切联系测试","authors":"Joshua Yeung, Kevin S. M. Bae","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2021.1928856","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The United Kingdom Supreme Court in Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2020] UKSC 12 held that a tortfeasor’s motive was ‘highly material’ in considering the second stage ‘close connection’ test for vicarious liability. However, the authors submit that this reintroduction of motive is highly problematic. It runs contrary to previous jurisprudence and backslides into the rigid artificiality which the ‘close connection’ test was supposed to solve. A revised approach to the ‘close connection’ test is suggested, involving an objective consideration of the connection between the tortfeasor’s employment and the circumstances surrounding the tort. This approach remedies the above-mentioned problems and existing academic criticism of the ‘close connection test’, and further accurately reflects how the courts actually determine the second stage test for vicarious liability.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":"21 1","pages":"169 - 180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2021.1928856","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bad apple spoils the barrel: motive and the close connection test for vicarious liability after Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc\",\"authors\":\"Joshua Yeung, Kevin S. M. Bae\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14729342.2021.1928856\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The United Kingdom Supreme Court in Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2020] UKSC 12 held that a tortfeasor’s motive was ‘highly material’ in considering the second stage ‘close connection’ test for vicarious liability. However, the authors submit that this reintroduction of motive is highly problematic. It runs contrary to previous jurisprudence and backslides into the rigid artificiality which the ‘close connection’ test was supposed to solve. A revised approach to the ‘close connection’ test is suggested, involving an objective consideration of the connection between the tortfeasor’s employment and the circumstances surrounding the tort. This approach remedies the above-mentioned problems and existing academic criticism of the ‘close connection test’, and further accurately reflects how the courts actually determine the second stage test for vicarious liability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"169 - 180\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2021.1928856\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2021.1928856\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2021.1928856","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

英国最高法院在多名原告诉莫里森超市一案[2020]UKSC 12中认为,在考虑替代责任的第二阶段“密切联系”检验时,侵权人的动机是“高度实质性的”。然而,作者认为,重新引入动机是非常有问题的。它与以前的法理学背道而驰,并倒退到“密切联系”检验应该解决的僵硬的人为性。建议对“密切联系”检验方法进行修订,包括客观地考虑侵权人的雇佣与围绕侵权行为的情况之间的联系。这一思路弥补了上述问题和学界对“密切联系检验”的批评,并进一步准确反映了法院对替代责任第二阶段检验的实际认定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bad apple spoils the barrel: motive and the close connection test for vicarious liability after Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc
ABSTRACT The United Kingdom Supreme Court in Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2020] UKSC 12 held that a tortfeasor’s motive was ‘highly material’ in considering the second stage ‘close connection’ test for vicarious liability. However, the authors submit that this reintroduction of motive is highly problematic. It runs contrary to previous jurisprudence and backslides into the rigid artificiality which the ‘close connection’ test was supposed to solve. A revised approach to the ‘close connection’ test is suggested, involving an objective consideration of the connection between the tortfeasor’s employment and the circumstances surrounding the tort. This approach remedies the above-mentioned problems and existing academic criticism of the ‘close connection test’, and further accurately reflects how the courts actually determine the second stage test for vicarious liability.
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
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信