advantage and disadvantage of vicarious liability reform
For the disadvantage we have: ALL involved parties should be held responsible REGARDLESS of level of liability
I'm not sure why all involved parties should be held responsible since the definition of vicarious liability is: held responsible for the** action of others**, it sounds like it's unfair to hold parties who didn't enact the action responsible?
Comments
If a company has a lax policy on harassment, and a manager turns a blind eye to reported harassment by an employee he manages, then all 3 entities (company, manager, and harassing employee) have contributed in different ways to the harassment. The principle of vicarious liability ensures that all 3 are held responsible.
If vicarious liability is eliminated, then only the harassing employee would be held responsible. The company would suffer no penalty for its lax policy and the manager would suffer no penalty for not taking action to stop the harassment. This may lead to a conditions where further harassment by other employees could occur because 2 of the 3 parties (company and manager) have no incentive to enforce the policy. That's the disadvantage of eliminating vicarious liability.