Court : US Supreme Court
..... ); see also connolly, supra, at 225 (noting that employer's liability under the mppaa "directly depend[ed] on the relationship between the employer and the plan to which it had made contributions"). ..... nbcw a did not alter the employers' obligation to contribute only a fixed amount of royalties, nor did it extend employers' liability beyond the life of the agreement ..... moreover, although the employer's liability under the mppaa exceeded erisa's original cap on withdrawal liability, we found that there was "no reasonable basis to expect that [erisa's] legislative ..... not extend the employers' liability beyond the term ..... mpp aa that we identified as potentially moderating the employer's liability in connolly were generally within the employer's control. ..... of america (umwa)] members had a legitimate expectation of lifetime benefits be- 552 first circuit.4 it is the same understanding that motivated the members of the coal commission to conclude that the operators who had employed the "orphaned miners" should share responsibility for their health benefits.5 and it is fore the 1974 nbcwa, based on the various funds' more than 30-year history of continuous payment of benefits and the ..... coal operators challenged the provisions of the act relating to miners who were no longer employed in the industry, arguing that those provisions violated substantive due process by imposing "an unexpected liability for past, completed acts that were legally proper and, at least in part, unknown ..... , 147 (1938) (same); .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
..... laid down before the passing of the employers' liability act, 1850, and the workmen's compensation act, 1897 (a forerunner of the act of 1906), by which the hardship often suffered by workmen by reason of injuries suffered by them in the course of their employment was to a considerable extent mitigated. ..... not perhaps necessary to add that the employers' duty at common law in these matters is not affected by the workmen's compensation act or by the employers liability act. ..... as i understand the law, it was also held by this house, long before the passing of the " employers liability act (43 and 44 viet. c. ..... my lords, it has already been pointed out that the employers liability is fulfilled by the exercise of due care and skill; and i may be allowed to point out that it is this circumstance which has led on occasion to a misapprehension of the ..... house overruled the decision of the court of appeal in rudd's case on the scope of the employer's liability to his workpeople for breach of a statutory duty. ..... a servant is injured by the negligence of a fellow-servant acting within the scope of their common employment, the former doctrine would impose liability on the master, while the latter doctrine would exculpate him ..... they may act and however dangerous the results of what they do may be to the workpeople, the employers on this view will be free from liability. ..... has been construed as inferring his liability for what is negligently done by the servant acting within the scope of his employment. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
..... the means to compensate the victim than the employee and can be expected to have insured against that liability; ii) the tort will have been committed as a result of activity being taken by the employee on behalf of the employer; iii) the employee's activity is likely to be part of the business activity of the employer; iv) the employer, by employing the employee to carry on the activity will have created the risk of the tort committed by the employee ..... has long been recognised that there are circumstances in which vicarious liability for the tortious act of a workman can be transferred from his employer to a third person who is using the employee's services under a contract, or other arrangement, with his employer see donovan v laing, wharton and down construction syndicate ltd ..... judgment ward lj traces the origin of vicarious liability back to the middle ages, but rightly identifies that the law upon which he and i cut our teeth rendered the employer, d2, liable for the tortious act of the employee, d1, provided that the act in question was committed "in the course of the employee's employment". ..... liability was concerned, para 42 of the judgment summarised the position as follows: " there must be a strong connection between what the employer was asking the employee to do (the risk created by the employer's enterprise) and the wrongful act. ..... the strong connection between d1's employment at the club and his acts of abuse that was necessary to give rise to vicarious liability. 66. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... the only question which these cases present is the constitutionality of the employers' liability act, which, briefly stated, provides a remedy for the injury or death of the employees of territorial, interstate, and foreign common carriers, caused by the negligence of the carrier. ..... 232, known as the employers' liability act, embraces subjects within the authority of congress to regulate commerce, it also includes subjects not within its constitutional power, and the two are so interblended in the statute that they are incapable of separation, and the ..... 463 (1908) the employers' liability cases nos. ..... supreme court employers' liability cases, 207 u.s. ..... employers' liability cases - 207 u.s ..... they cannot be regarded lightly, and if we follow them, they lead us to the conclusion that the national power to regulate commerce is broad enough to regulate the employment, duties, obligations, liabilities, and conduct of all persons engaged in commerce with respect to all which is comprehended in that commerce. ..... regulating commerce exclusively within the states, yet, that legislation fixing the obligation of employers engaged in interstate and foreign commerce to their employees in such commerce, for injuries suffered by the latter in the course of the employment, is not the regulation of commerce, and therefore is not within any power conferred by the constitution upon congress; third, because, even if the act is concerned with a subject which is within the power of congress, yet the specific .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... the facts, which involve the construction of the federal employers' liability act and its application to employees of others than the carrier, are stated in the opinion. ..... we conclude that the plaintiff in error was not an employee of the defendant company within the meaning of the employers' liability act, and that the judgment must be affirmed. ..... 85 whose lines the employer's cars were operated, from all claims for liability in personal injury sustained by the employ, held in this case valid unless the employee of the pullman company was also the employee of the railroad company, in which case that provision of the contract would be invalid under 5 of the employers' liability act. ..... the substantial question is whether the contract of release was invalid under 5 of the employers' liability act of april 22, 1908, 35 stat. 65, c. ..... 84 error to the court of appeals of the district of columbia syllabus in a suit for personal injuries under the employers' liability act, a contract between the plaintiff and a third party may be admissible in evidence on the trial to show that plaintiff was not defendant's employee, even though a demurrer had been sustained to a special plea that the contract contained a release of liability. ..... for the "liability created" by the act is a liability to the "employees" of the carrier, and not to others, and the plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of the provision unless he was "employed" by the railroad company within the meaning of the act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... 205 error to the supreme court, appellate division, third judicial department, of the state of new york syllabus the federal employers' liability act applies only where the injury occurs in railroad operations or their adjuncts, and cannot be extended to interstate maritime transportation merely because the vessel in the case is owned and operated by an interstate ..... properly holds that, under the circumstances of the case at bar, although plaintiff in error was engaged in interstate commerce, and the deceased met his death while employed in such commerce, the provisions of the federal employers' liability act (april 22, 1908, 35 stat. 65, c. ..... the first federal employers' liability act (june 11, 1906 ..... that therefore rights and liabilities of the parties here must be determined in accordance with the federal employers' liability act. ..... railroad, is responsible for injuries received by employees while engaged therein under the federal employers' liability act of april 22, 1908, c. ..... 103 ; second employers' liability cases, 223 ..... employers' liability cases, ..... mutual connection with intrastate work may and shall be clearly separable and distinguishable from interstate or foreign commerce, except that such employer and his employees working only in this state may, subject to the approval and in the manner provided by the commission and so far as not forbidden by any act of congress, accept and become bound by the provisions of this chapter in like manner and with the same effect in all .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... in that case, an action its securities and currently has no federal employers' liability act, and it was held that a city ordinance and police regulation limiting the speed of trains, having all the effect of a statute, could not be admitted as evidence of contributory ..... this court, reversing that court, held that the federal employers' liability act did apply to the case, and that the case should be submitted to the jury on the issue whether the fireman was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of ..... 474 , said: "by the federal employers' liability act, congress took possession of the field of employers' liability to employees in interstate transportation by rail, and all state laws upon that subject were ..... right of action cannot arise under the federal employers' liability act upon any other basis than negligence. p. ..... the exclusive operation of the federal employers' liability act within the field of rights and duties as between an interstate commerce common carrier and its employees has been illustrated in opinions of this court applying that act by quotation of the words of ..... , an action was brought under the federal employers' liability act by an employee against an interstate carrier. ..... we come, then, to the specific question whether the violation of a statute of a state prohibiting the employment of workmen under a certain age and providing for punishment of such employment should be held to be negligence in a suit brought under the federal employers' liability act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... persistent protest against granting petitions for certiorari to review judgments in the state courts and the united states courts of appeals involving application of the federal employers' liability act, i deemed it necessary to register my conviction on the unjustifiability of granting such petitions by noting that the petitions were page 355 u. s ..... (a) the decisions of this court in actions under the federal employers' liability act based upon violations of the safety appliance acts and the boiler inspection act establish that a violation of either act creates liability without regard to negligence if the violation in fact contributes to the death or injury, without regard to whether the injury flowing from the breach was the injury the statute sought to prevent ..... has been my general practice for on to a decade to refrain from participating in the substantive disposition of cases arising under the federal employers' liability act and the jones act that have been brought here on writ of certiorari, a word explaining my participation today is in order. ..... held: under the jones act, which incorporates the provisions of the federal employers' liability act, the seaman's employer was liable, without a showing of negligence, for his death resulting from a violation of the coast guard regulations pertaining to ..... 726, abolished appeals to the court in federal employers' liability act cases and restricted review of lower court decisions in such cases to the confined scope of our general .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... combination of facts, this court held that rock could not recover damages against the railroad under the federal employers' liability act, saying: "right to recover may not justify or reasonably be rested on a foundation so abhorrent to ..... despite his flagrant fraud in procuring the employee status, he may have the special benefits, and freedom from the normal defenses, given by congress in the federal employers' liability act to one who has honestly acquired the status of and is truly an employee of a railroad. ..... in the face of the legislative policy embodied in the federal employers' liability act that a railroad should pay damages to its workers and their families for personal injuries inflicted by the railroad's negligence upon those who perform its duties, considerations of public ..... under the federal employers' liability act, a railroad cannot escape liability for personal injuries negligently inflicted upon an employee by proving that he had obtained his job by making false representations upon which the railroad rightfully ..... railroad here seeks to bring itself within the rock decision by arguing that rock established the principle that any false representation which deceives the employer and results in a railroad worker's getting a job he would not otherwise have obtained is sufficient to bar the worker from recovering the damages congress has provided for railroad workers negligently injured in the honest performance of their duties under the federal employers' liability act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... in promulgating the act, congress conspicuously left intact the "limits of employer liability" established in meritor. ..... 3d, at 983, 984 (observing that, "[i]n some cases, the existence of a written policy instituted in good faith has operated as a total bar to employer liability for punitive damages" and concluding that "the institution of a written sexual harassment policy goes a long way towards dispelling any claim about the employer's 'reckless' or 'malicious' state of mind"). ..... since the court has determined otherwise, however, i join part i and that portion of part ii-b of the court's opinion holding that principles of agency law place a significant limitation, and in many foreseeable cases a complete bar, on employer liability for punitive damages. ..... the district court denied petitioner's request for a jury instruction on punitive damages, which are authorized by the civil rights act of 1991 (1991 act) for title vii cases in which the employee "demonstrates" that the employer has engaged in intentional discrimination and has done so "with malice or with reckless indifference to [the employee's] federally protected rights." 42 u. s. c. ..... the restatement also contemplates liability for punitive awards where an employee serving in a "managerial capacity" committed the wrong while "acting in the scope of employment. .....
Tag this Judgment!