Posted 12 February 2013 - 11:51 AM
Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:45 PM
Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:05 AM
While the law varies from state to state, the standard mentioned above is generally the standard for awarding punitive damages, and it doesn't matter that the defendant was "the agent of a company" (or even if we assume you were intending to say that the defendant was acting in the course and scope of his/her agency at the time of the actions on which the lawsuit is based).
I generally agree with "Tax_Counsel's" comments about vicarious liability and immunization. It is worth noting that, while an employer may be vicariously liable for its employees' or agents' torts where the torts are based on actions taken in the course and scope of the employment or agency, the same is not necessarily true for punitive damages. For example, in California, "[a]n employer shall not be liable for [punitive] damages . . . based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation." Cal. Civ. Code Section 3294(. Other states may have similar elevated standards for vicarious liability for punitive damages against an employer.
Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:06 AM
Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:17 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users