翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Bazinval
・ Bazir Kola
・ Bazisa
・ Bazita Peak TV Tower
・ Bazitkhan
・ Baziège
・ Bazjaš monastery
・ Bazjon Trogaj
・ Bazkabad
・ Bazkabad, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari
・ Bazkabad, Khuzestan
・ Bazlama
・ Bazlen
・ Bazley
・ Bazley baronets
Bazley v Curry
・ Bazley, KwaZulu-Natal
・ Bazlul Chowdhury
・ Bazm
・ Bazm E Tariq Aziz
・ Bazm, Fars
・ Bazm, Isfahan
・ Bazm-e-Maula Shah
・ Bazmaberd
・ Bazmaghbyur
・ Bazmahi
・ Bazmak
・ Bazmak-e Olya
・ Bazmak-e Sofla
・ Bazman


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Bazley v Curry : ウィキペディア英語版
Bazley v Curry

''Bazley v Curry'' () 2 SCR 534 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of vicarious liability where the Court held that a non-profit organization may be held vicariously liable in tort law for sexual misconduct by one of its employees. The decision has widely influenced jurisprudence on vicarious liability outside of Canada.〔See for example: ''Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd'', () UKHL 22; and ''New South Wales v Lepore'', () HCA 4.〕
==Facts==
The Children's Foundation is a provincially funded, non-profit organization which operated two residential care facilities for children aged six to twelve. In April 1966, the foundation employed Leslie Charles Curry to work in its Vancouver home, where he was hired as a childcare counsellor practising "total intervention" in the lives of the children he was caring for. He worked there until March 1980, when the Foundation received a complaint. They investigated and discovered that Curry was in fact a paedophile and had been abusing the children under his care. In 1990 he was charged with 18 counts of gross indecency and two counts of buggery, and was convicted on all but one count, two of those convictions were in relation to the respondent in this case, Patrick Allen Bazley. Curry died not long thereafter. In this case, Bazley sought damages from The Children's Foundation, alleging that they are vicariously liable for the misconduct of its employee.
The main issue in this appeal was whether or not the Children's Foundation should be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employee. There were two questions before the court: May employers be held vicariously liable for sexual assaults on clients or persons within their care?; If so, should non-profit organizations be exempted from liability as a matter of policy?

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Bazley v Curry」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.