File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1093/medlaw/fwaa018
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85098835161
- PMID: 32892220
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Halting the vicarious liability juggernaut: Barclays bank PLC v various claimants
Title | Halting the vicarious liability juggernaut: Barclays bank PLC v various claimants |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Doctors Medical malpractice The non-delegable duty of care Torts Vicarious liability |
Issue Date | 2020 |
Citation | Medical Law Review, 2020, v. 28, n. 4, p. 794-803 How to Cite? |
Abstract | In Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, the Supreme Court rejected the claimants’ argument that Barclays should be vicariously liable for the sexual assaults of a doctor hired on as a contractor to perform medical examinations on employees and job candidates at the bank. It upheld the traditional rule that a defendant is not vicariously liable for the torts of independent contractors. This commentary examines the law on liability for independent contractors and considers whether the Supreme Court decision is consistent with modern employment trends. The implications of the decision for medical law are then discussed. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/344509 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.8 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.545 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Purshouse, Craig | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-07-31T03:04:05Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-07-31T03:04:05Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Medical Law Review, 2020, v. 28, n. 4, p. 794-803 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0967-0742 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/344509 | - |
dc.description.abstract | In Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, the Supreme Court rejected the claimants’ argument that Barclays should be vicariously liable for the sexual assaults of a doctor hired on as a contractor to perform medical examinations on employees and job candidates at the bank. It upheld the traditional rule that a defendant is not vicariously liable for the torts of independent contractors. This commentary examines the law on liability for independent contractors and considers whether the Supreme Court decision is consistent with modern employment trends. The implications of the decision for medical law are then discussed. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Medical Law Review | - |
dc.subject | Doctors | - |
dc.subject | Medical malpractice | - |
dc.subject | The non-delegable duty of care | - |
dc.subject | Torts | - |
dc.subject | Vicarious liability | - |
dc.title | Halting the vicarious liability juggernaut: Barclays bank PLC v various claimants | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1093/medlaw/fwaa018 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 32892220 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85098835161 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 28 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 4 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 794 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 803 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1464-3790 | - |