Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Erlangen, 1913. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [6-7]).

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Lehigh University, 2008. / Also available online.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Golden Gate University, 1991. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 148-154).

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Lehigh University, 2005. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 101-109).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Lehigh University, 2005. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 96-104).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Golden Gate University, 1991. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 148-154).

The doctrine of vicarious liability provides justification for a deviation from the general rule that fault is an indispensable requirement to attach liability to an individual. The doctrine provides that an aggrieved party may hold an employer liable for the wrongful or delictual conduct of its employees. The South African legal system inherited the doctrine of vicarious liability from common-law and the doctrine is deeply rooted in English-law. The South African legal sphere is subject to constant transformation and as a result hereof, the common-law doctrine of vicarious liability should also be subjected to transformation. Uncertainty reigned in relation to whether the judiciary or the legislature carried the burden to develop the doctrine of vicarious liability in order to accommodate the needs of a modern society. The doctrine of vicarious liability is a universal concept and the transformation that the doctrine has undergone in other common-law countries could prove to be useful guidelines to assist with the development of the doctrine within the South African legal context. The doctrine places a tremendous burden on employers by providing that employers can be held accountable for the unlawful and delictual actions of its employees. One of the stumbling blocks that the South African judiciary had to overcome was to determine in which instances the liability of employers should be restricted in relation to the conduct of their employees. It is common cause that the doctrine, due to its onerous nature, cannot be regarded as absolute. Perhaps one of the most significant restrictions that has been placed on the application of the doctrine has been the fact that employers may only be held accountable for the wrongful conduct of its employees in instances where the employee has acted within the scope of his or her employment. The dividing line between acts committed within the scope of employment and acts committed outside of the scope of employment is a very fine line and the judiciary tend to tread carefully upon pronouncing on such matters. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 reiterates the importance of ensuring that the constitutional values of reasonableness and fairness are adhered to. An aggrieved party would be left with deep scars in the event that the individual is prohibited from instituting an action against an employer for harm or loss suffered as a result of a wrongful action of an employee of that employer. The employer would suffer prejudice in the event that the employer is held accountable for the wrongful conduct of an employee which is unrelated to the business of the employer. The answer to the conundrum lies in striking a balance between the prejudice suffered by the aggrieved party and the prejudice suffered by the employer. The aim of the judiciary should be to ensure that restrictions made to the application and interpretation of the doctrine of vicarious liability would be justifiable and reasonable in terms of the Constitution. The balancing of the interests of the employer and the balancing of the interests of the aggrieved parties are essential to ensure that justice prevails. It is common cause that no general test exist in the South African legal sphere in order to determine the liability of an employer for the wrongful conduct of its employees. Due to the complex nature of the doctrine of vicarious liability it can be averred that a general test would not address the technicalities of the doctrine. An important consideration to determine the liability of an employer is to establish whether a sufficiently close connection existed between the duties of the employee and the wrongful conduct of the employee. This factor can be considered as the “golden thread” that must be present to determine the liability of the employer. The doctrine of vicarious liability is a concept which has proved to be imperative in the South African legal sphere. Employers should be held accountable for the wrongful conduct of its employees, but simultaneously the constitutional values of reasonableness and fairness should be adhered to. Even though vicarious liability is an onerous concept for employers, justice would prevail if the values of the Constitution are applied religiously.

The purpose of this study was to examine and interpret the legal decisions of the Canadian courts in litigation concerning tort liability on the part of the physical education teacher and coach in the gymnasium, on the playing field, in the community recreation classes and on athletic trips up to and including early 1975. Basically, the answers to the following questions were sought: (1) What is negligence in law and how does this apply to the Physical Education teacher? (2) If a teacher is involved in a law suit what legal defenses are open to him or her? (3) What are some of the areas in the school system which a teacher should be particularly aware of in terms of potential legal problems? The study aimed to stimulates (1) an appreciation for protecting the student in the school environment and on athletic trips (2) an understanding of the basic precepts of liability that might have an adverse or constructive effect on the school program (3) a realization that loss of professional integrity and financial loss can be painful consequences of one's liability. An attempt was made to clarify basic legal issues in the area of tort liability that concerns the physical educator in Canada, and to point out issues that the Physical Education teacher should be aware of in evaluating activities in the light of possible repercussions. Also, where major problems were discovered concerning the P.E. teacher's legal status in Canada, recommendations were made as to solutions to these problems. The research was carried out through an investigation of Canadian court cases relating to the topic of legal liability and the physical education teacher. From these cases it was possible to establish some basic legal principles concerning teacher liability in the classroom, in the gymnasium, on the playing field and on trips away from the school environment. / Education, Faculty of / Curriculum and Pedagogy (EDCP), Department of / Graduate

No description available.

No description available.