Talk:Vicarious liability

message: This whole section is horribly written. 'I' and 'we' don't belong in an ecyclopedia entry. And I'm not sufficiently versed in legalise to even try rewriting this. Instead of outright deleting it, could someone better edumacated take a stab at rewriting it?Kairos (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms Section is badly written 

message: The "however" below (whereas my reading suggests "likewise"), together with the other words I emphasize, seems to indicate the paragraph might accidentally reverse the sense in one ore more sentences:
Shouldn't that read:
* likewise, the employer of an independent contractor is not held liable.or
* however, the employer of an independent contractor is held liable.
???
*I think the point the author was trying to make is that an employer can be liable for intentional torts of an employee whose job involves use of force (i.e. a bouncer), but can not be held liable for the intentional torts of an independent contractor whose job involves use of force, unless the independent contractor injured someone the employer had a duty to protect. Certainly, the law places less liability on an employer for the acts of an independent contractor. bd2412 T 00:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  flipped sense? 

message: An anonymous editor posted the following material. While insightful, it does not conform to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, and frequently uses styles such as first-person that are avoided in Wikipedia. We may be able to extract useful and nonredundant content from it, so I'm putting it here. Deco 00:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS Essay 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Vicarious liability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051216061643/http://www.dti.gov.uk:80/cld/glick.pdf to http://www.dti.gov.uk/cld/glick.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The connection between vicarious liability made by William Lane Craig to vicarious liability should be listed here, because it plays a big role in substitutionary atonement theology. Here is an example reference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsNqBOAU1_s) 132.234.228.39 (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corollary to substitutionary atonement theology 

message: Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page.  I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.
  Vicarious Liability for Larger Corporations as a Regulatory Function
While there have been some scholarship regarding the end of vicarious liability for subordinate entities in the United States due to the ability to define organizational boundaries, this form of third=party liability is still alive and well in regulatory sectors of the financial, business, and digital corporate sphere.   There have been increasing requirements for larger business entities to police, monitor, and oversee regulatory violations committed by smaller third-parties.    For example, the Federal Trade Commission requires Facebook to monitor app developers.  Also, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau requires banks to monitor debt collectors for violations related to harassment and abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices.  Thus, one area in which vicarious liability remains at the head of business activity is under administrative and regulatory law.
Cf2022 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  I have denied this edit request for not being an improvement to the article.  This article is about primary and secondary vicarious liability.  Your requested changes involve tertiary liability and are outside the scope of the article. Orvilletalk 07:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Proposed Changes 

message: I found my way to this article trying to understand this term which is used in a CBC article:
"Selling churches to pay for sins"
By Patrick Butler   Radio-Canada   Jun. 1, 2022
I wonder if the section on Ecclesiastical corporations could be expanded. An example makes things more understandable for most people. So the consequence of having to sell church property clarifies the term. 
I noted that no judgement was made against the Roman Catholic Church, and wonder why vicarious liability could not be extended up the line. 
The implications of parishioners not owning their church is interesting. It might even be worth a separate article discussing other instances of church liability.
This is specialist knowledge so I won't attempt any edits myself. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add information about the Newfoundland church sale