Negligence liability is also a type of liability that is often the source of obligation to some defendants. This means that some people who may not have been directly part of something may be held liable for something they did not actually commit. For example, using a car accident scenario, suppose the incident occurred at 10:30 a.m. on a weekday and that Don, an employee of Acme Office Supply, was driving a company van while making a delivery to a local office building. Under a theory of negligence called “vicarious liability”, not only will Don be found at fault for causing the accident with Pat, but as Don’s employer Acme Office Supply also could be held legally responsible for Don’s negligence in causing the car accident. The reason behind this is the recognition that Don is accountable for the carelessness of his employee. Employment duties provide more responsibilities on the part of the employer than what is usually just necessary.
The main reason for having the concept of negligence liability is to give the claimant, more chance to recover. Usually, the employer will be the one that has enough means to pay the plaintiff because the defendant is only a mere employee.
The theory of negligence responsibility is not limited to the individual’s actions or inactions. This concept also applies to small businesses, partnerships, organizations, and large corporations may all be held legally responsible in situations where they failed to properly ensure the safety of others. For example, defective products manufactured by a certain corporation will be subject to the liability of the corporation.
Negligence: Not in Every Accident or Injury Case
As a general rule, negligence responsibility applies to most cases. However there are also exceptions called the strict liability rule.If you are detrimentally affected by a defective product, or through certain inherently dangerous activities like the shipping of toxic chemicals or the keeping of a dangerous animal, your case will likely proceed under this legal theory. While the rules are different from those in negligence cases, the good news is that when compared to negligence claims, a plaintiff in a “strict liability” personal injury case does not ordinarily need to show that the defendant was at fault — only that the product or activity was unreasonably dangerous, and plaintiff’s injuries were the result.