goddamn. i remember watching your stuff literally the night before an am exam. god bless you for posting these. you really saved me man, especially since you were teaching eduqas and that was my exam board.
Off the top of my head: someone watching video or a person being attacked online and doing nothing, not reporting this, particularly if they repeatedly go back and watch The same goes for employers who do not file reports against employees who create circumstances where someone will be injured, (leave any part of building or living quarters unrepaired, if requiring to live in quarters for work) Looking the other way on attacks, sexual harassment, and violation of privacy would qualify as well.
Hi, great video👍 For the tests for 'employees' section, how do you know which tests to apply to the scenario? Do you choose the most relevant test for the scenario? As, surely you don't need to apply all of them.
so work for fedex ground. they use contractors but my contractor put me on w2 as employee for tax reasons. but the job itself is pretty working for fedex ground, they even intervene with my loads and change destinations as i am in the middle of a load, etc. they are in control of the job not my contractors i work for. i worked for other trucking companies ltl trucking companies that operate exactly the same but they call the workers, to be workers. not like this odd scheme of calling them contractors. i looked up a book about truck accident litigation. it mentioned something about there being a deciding factor in accident litigation if i am employee or contract. so this whole thing could be a scheme of fedex ground to remove liability from themselves for their legal obligations. also because its contractors, this means unfair or unequal pay, one contrractor may pay low, anohter pays high. then fedex ground can actually choke out bully drivers of one contractor, and bully the contractors themselves aswell. it's another attempt to remove liability from discrimination laws. and fair pay laws, and work assignment fedex ground may detain the drivers without pay at terminals acroos the country do it alot to certain drivers but not others. they alreadly lost a big lawsuit over this for tax evasion regarding misclassify workers as contractors, but i feel like the violations extends way beyond, that. their liability for discrimination, aswell as torts in accident situations, etc etc etc. what is your oppinion? is fedex ground wrongfully trying to remove vicarious liability of themsleves for the various legal oblitions are suppost to uphold?
thanks so much for this video, do you have an evaluation video for occupiers liability ? i can’t find one on your page! (your self defence one came in so handy for the exam on monday)
It isn’t necessary here. But…. the issue of vicarious liability would exist where C is injured at a franchised outlet due to the negligence of a franchisee. C can sue the franchisor claiming that the franchisor is vicariously liable for the actions of the franchisee.
goddamn. i remember watching your stuff literally the night before an am exam. god bless you for posting these. you really saved me man, especially since you were teaching eduqas and that was my exam board.
I’m so glad these were useful!
Off the top of my head: someone watching video or a person being attacked online and doing nothing, not reporting this, particularly if they repeatedly go back and watch
The same goes for employers who do not file reports against employees who create circumstances where someone will be injured, (leave any part of building or living quarters unrepaired, if requiring to live in quarters for work)
Looking the other way on attacks, sexual harassment, and violation of privacy would qualify as well.
Hi, great video👍
For the tests for 'employees' section, how do you know which tests to apply to the scenario?
Do you choose the most relevant test for the scenario? As, surely you don't need to apply all of them.
This was very useful. Thank you ☺️
You’re welcome 😊
What if the the tort committed is battery during the course of employment by an employee?
Excellent
Thank youuuuuuuuu
You’re welcome, thanks for watching!
so work for fedex ground. they use contractors but my contractor put me on w2 as employee for tax reasons. but the job itself is pretty working for fedex ground, they even intervene with my loads and change destinations as i am in the middle of a load, etc. they are in control of the job not my contractors i work for.
i worked for other trucking companies ltl trucking companies that operate exactly the same but they call the workers, to be workers. not like this odd scheme of calling them contractors.
i looked up a book about truck accident litigation. it mentioned something about there being a deciding factor in accident litigation if i am employee or contract. so this whole thing could be a scheme of fedex ground to remove liability from themselves for their legal obligations.
also because its contractors, this means unfair or unequal pay, one contrractor may pay low, anohter pays high. then fedex ground can actually choke out bully drivers of one contractor, and bully the contractors themselves aswell. it's another attempt to remove liability from discrimination laws. and fair pay laws, and work assignment fedex ground may detain the drivers without pay at terminals acroos the country do it alot to certain drivers but not others.
they alreadly lost a big lawsuit over this for tax evasion regarding misclassify workers as contractors, but i feel like the violations extends way beyond, that. their liability for discrimination, aswell as torts in accident situations, etc etc etc.
what is your oppinion? is fedex ground wrongfully trying to remove vicarious liability of themsleves for the various legal oblitions are suppost to uphold?
Do I mention all the tests and all their cases and then discuss the ones in application for the scenario
Yes that’s a great approach!
thanks so much for this video, do you have an evaluation video for occupiers liability ? i can’t find one on your page! (your self defence one came in so handy for the exam on monday)
I’m glad to hear self defence was helpful. I don’t have an OLA one yet I’m afraid.
Wait so you need to apply the whole of negligence before you can talk about vicarious liability? I'm assuming these would be two separate questions
Yes you would need to outline negligence first (unless the question tells you not to).
can you please do an evaluation video?
Hi, I'm self studying for the SQE and your videos are really helpful. I want to know if I can download and print your slides.
Unfortunately I don’t have a way of supplying resources at the moment.
love u!
Thank you, I love all my valued watchers!
What about a Franchisee
It isn’t necessary here. But…. the issue of vicarious liability would exist where C is injured at a franchised outlet due to the negligence of a franchisee. C can sue the franchisor claiming that the franchisor is vicariously liable for the actions of the franchisee.