Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Employer Vicarious Liability For Voluntary Relationships Between Supervisors And Employees, Carrie E. Fischesser
Employer Vicarious Liability For Voluntary Relationships Between Supervisors And Employees, Carrie E. Fischesser
Seattle University Law Review
It is somewhat radical to suggest that an employer should not be held vicariously liable for an employee's voluntary submission to sexual advances where the alleged harasser is a supervisor, and this approach is a marked departure from existing assumptions regarding sexual harassment. Most decisions and writings on the topic have imposed--under a traditional agency theory-- vicarious liability upon the employer for the sexually harassing conduct of its supervisors.4 Specifically, courts addressing this issue have held that “[t]here is no question that a ‘tangible employment action’ occurs when a supervisor abuses his authority to act on his employer's behalf by …
Tegman V. Accident & Medical Investigations, Inc.: The Re-Modification Of Modified Joint And Several Liability By Judicial Fiat, Victor J. Torres
Tegman V. Accident & Medical Investigations, Inc.: The Re-Modification Of Modified Joint And Several Liability By Judicial Fiat, Victor J. Torres
Seattle University Law Review
This Note explores the Tegman decision in the context of joint and several liability between negligent and intentional actors within Washington State. Part II places Washington tort law into perspective, including the doctrine of joint and several liability, both before and after the Tort Reform Act of 1986. Part III discusses the Tegman decision, methods used in other jurisdictions for dealing with similar situations, and potential solutions to the problems posed by the Tegman holding. Finally, Part IV concludes and urges both the court to reconsider its ruling in Tegman and the legislature to clarify its intent.
Erisa Preemption Of Medical Malpractice Claims: Can Managed Care Organizations Avoid Vicarious Liability?, J. Bradley Buckhalter
Erisa Preemption Of Medical Malpractice Claims: Can Managed Care Organizations Avoid Vicarious Liability?, J. Bradley Buckhalter
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment begins by briefly discussing the theory of respondeat superior and the vicarious liability of MCOs for the negligence of affiliated physicians.' Next, the section presents an overview of ERISA, focusing on ERISA's preemption of laws that impact employee benefit plans, particularly medical malpractice claims brought against MCOs seeking to hold them vicariously liable for an affiliated physician's negligence. Section III applies current ERISA preemption doctrine to a situation such as Peterson's, in which a plaintiff attempts to hold an MCO vicariously liable for an affiliated physician's negligence. Section IV concludes that, given the current state of ERISA preemption …
Recovery Of Pure Economic Loss In Product Liability Actions: An Economic Comparison Of Three Legal Rules, Heidi A. Irvin, Mark S. Carlson
Recovery Of Pure Economic Loss In Product Liability Actions: An Economic Comparison Of Three Legal Rules, Heidi A. Irvin, Mark S. Carlson
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment argues that in the allocation of pure economic loss caused by product failure, the negligence rule is generally more efficient than a strict liability rule and that a contract rule is almost always more efficient than a negligence rule. Part II presents a general discussion of the attributes of an economically efficient remedy. In Part III, three legal rules used to allocate pure economic loss are scrutinized under the standards set forth in Part II.
Herskovits V. Group Health Cooperative: Negligent Creation Of A Substantial Risk Of Injury Is A Compensable Harm, Warner Miller
Herskovits V. Group Health Cooperative: Negligent Creation Of A Substantial Risk Of Injury Is A Compensable Harm, Warner Miller
Seattle University Law Review
This Note commends the Herskovits court for recognizing the loss of-a-chance claim as a legitimate cause of action. Chance interests are worthy of the protection of tort law. We can be statistically certain that the destruction of chance interests in survival results in actual losses. The burden of such losses should not fall exclusively on the victim, particularly when the interfering conduct of the wrongdoer has deprived the individual victim of the ability to know and prove with certainty the value of the lost chance. The burden of the loss can be shifted in an equitable manner to the negligent …