Case Assignment Module 3: Vicarious Liability

Title:
Name of Student:
Institution:
Date of Submission:

Introduction
The meaning of vicarious liability can be understood in the context of for example, an employer being liable for the mistakes of his or her employees. There has to be a relationship of employer and employee for one party to be held liable for the mistakes of his or her employee. As such, the employee must have been acting, at the time of the mistake, within the scope of that employee’s job description. The employer cannot be held liable for the employee’s mistakes if the employee was just on his or her own errands.
On the other hand, corporate liability is the liability of corporate bodies for instance companies or partnerships among other registered firms, for the mistakes or debts caused by their employees. The same rationale for separating a company which is not a natural person from its natural persons is the manner in which an employer is separated from his or her employee’s mistakes by the virtue of not being an employee if there is no such relationship. As such, the employee must have been acting in good faith and without ill motives. The employee must have been in the line of offering his or her services in a manner that is permitted by the company.
In the case at hand that is Norton vs. Argonaut Insurance Co.; there are various mistakes that suffice. One of them is the doctor’s failure to properly prescribe the manner in which a sensitive medicine should be administered. The doctor is so negligent as he does not prescribe the method that could have been used in an instance that there were more than one option of administering the medicine (Berlant, J., (1975). It is because of all this that the troubles for the deceased infant began. Lanoxin as highlighted in the case could have been administered in two different form and manner. This comprised of administering one form orally and the other form by injection. From the opinion of experts and other doctors in the same field, it was not wise to assume that a certain attendant could know that a certain form could be administered in a certain method. On this basis the doctor could have also been held liable for being negligent in prescribing medication. In such instances where utmost attention and care need to be exercised, the doctor was the sole cause of the death of the infant.
Further, another mistake arising is that of poor management. The hospital was not properly managed. This was the case because there was no one to administer the prescribed dosage to the infant and this is what prompted the second defendant to step in and ensure the infant was attended to. Similarly, improper record keeping(Berlant, J., 1975). led to the mistake made by the second defendant Mrs. Evans, as there was nothing on record to show that the infant’s mother had also been attending to the infant under the instructions given by the hospital. This is the main cause of the mistake that was made leading to the death. Also, lack of proper consultation between the staff led to poor consultation a factor that led to misinformed consultations and poor advice from the other medics that were consulted. The liability that could arise in this case would be that of contributory...