The document discusses six Latin legal maxims - Respondent Superior, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium, Rex Non Potest Peccare, and Delegatus Non Potest Delegare. It provides the meaning and scope of each maxim, examples of their application, and elements required to establish some of the doctrines. Key points include Respondent Superior establishing employer liability, Res Ipsa Loquitur allowing negligence inferences, and Volenti Non Fit Injuria providing the assumption of risk defense.
The document discusses six Latin legal maxims - Respondent Superior, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium, Rex Non Potest Peccare, and Delegatus Non Potest Delegare. It provides the meaning and scope of each maxim, examples of their application, and elements required to establish some of the doctrines. Key points include Respondent Superior establishing employer liability, Res Ipsa Loquitur allowing negligence inferences, and Volenti Non Fit Injuria providing the assumption of risk defense.
The document discusses six Latin legal maxims - Respondent Superior, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium, Rex Non Potest Peccare, and Delegatus Non Potest Delegare. It provides the meaning and scope of each maxim, examples of their application, and elements required to establish some of the doctrines. Key points include Respondent Superior establishing employer liability, Res Ipsa Loquitur allowing negligence inferences, and Volenti Non Fit Injuria providing the assumption of risk defense.
8ASlC SCCL ln Lhls seL of slldes we explore Lhe followlng Laun maxlms, along wlLh Lhelr meanlng, appllcauon and scope: 8espondeaL Superlor 8es lpsa LoqulLor volenu non llL ln[urla ubl !us lbl 8emedlum 8ex non-oLesL eccare uelegaLus non- oLesL uelegare
8LSCnuLA1 SuL8lC8 8LSCnuLA1 SuL8lC8- MLAnlnC 1he maxlm llLerally means- leL Lhe prlnclpal be held responslble" or leL Lhe superlor make answer". 8espondeaL Superlor ls Lhe prlnclple ln LorL law holdlng an employer llable for Lhe employee's/ agenL's wrongful acLs commlued wlLhln Lhe scope of employmenL of agency. 8espondeaL Superlor ls Lhe baslc prlnclple of vlcarlous llablllLy under LorL law, and relaLes Lo agency. SCCL- 8LSCnuLA1 SuL8lC8 1he employer or prlnclpal can be held llable under Lhe docLrlne of respondeaL superlor only lf Lhe followlng condluons are fullled: 1he person commlmng Lhe wrongful acL ls ln an employer- employee relauonshlp or agenL-prlnclpal relauonshlp wlLh Lhe employer/prlnclpal. 1he wrongful acL ls commlued durlng Lhe course of employmenL or happens wlLhln Lhe scope of employmenL. 1he LesL of employer-employee relauonshlp ls Lo deLermlne wheLher Lhe employer had Lhe rlghL Lo conLrol Lhe employee ln renderlng Lhe servlces and dlrecL Lhe conducL of Lhe employee.
8LSCnuLA1 SuL8lC8- lLLuS18A1lCn !"#$%&'( A[ay ls 8amu's drlver, lf A[ay hlLs LaLa whlle drlvlng for 8amu or durlng an errand for 8amu, Lhen 8amu ls llable under Lhe docLrlne of respondeaL superlor.
Powever, lf 8amu ls drlvlng around aer work hours and hlLs LaLa, Lhe accldenL happened ouLslde Lhe course of employmenL wlLh 8amu, and hence 8amu Lhe employer, wlll noL be llable under Lhe docLrlne. CASL LAW LxL8ClSL- 8LSCnuLA1 SuL8lC8 1race Lhe prlnclple of respondeaL superlor wlLh Lhe essence of Lhe [udgmenL ln nllabau 8ehra- Look aL Lhe dlsuncuon drawn and evoluuon of lL from kasLurllal v. SLaLe of u and Sahall v. Commlssloner of ollce. 8LS lSA LCCul1C8 8LS lSA LCCul1C8- MLAnlnC 8es lpsa LoqulLor llLerally means Lhe Lhlng speaks for lLself". 1he docLrlne provldes LhaL ln some clrcumsLances, Lhe mere facL of an accldenL's occurrence ralses an lnference of negllgence LhaL esLabllshes a prlma facle case. 8es lpsa LoqulLor more oen Lhan noL operaLes agalnsL Lhe defendanL and puLs Lhe plalnu ln a sllghLly elevaLed posluon. 1he appllcauon of Lhls docLrlne lnduces sLrlcL llablllLy. 8LS lSA LCCul1C8- LLLMLn1S 1he followlng elemenLs need Lo be proved ln order Lo esLabllsh Lhe clalm of 8es lpsa LoqulLor: 1he defendanL owed Lhe plalnu a duLy of care. 1he ln[ury was caused Lo Lhe plalnu due Lo Lhe defendanL's negllgence ln observlng such duLy. 1he negllgence ls more aurlbuLable Lo Lhe acL or omlsslon on Lhe parL of Lhe defendanL, Lhan Lhe plalnu or a Lhlrd parLy. 8LS lSA LCCul1C8- lLLuS18A1lCn lor example 8avl ls drlvlng rashly on a one way, on Lhe wrong slde of Lhe road. Pe hlLs Annle and ln[ures her. 8avl's acuon ln lLself ls wrongful, and speaks for lLself. 8es lpsa LoqulLor ls a cruclal Lool for deLermlnauon ln medlcal and Lramc [urlsprudence. 1he role of Lhls docLrlne ls Lo hlghllghL LhaL Lhe defendanL's acuons were wrongful ln lLself. vCLLn1l nCn ll1 ln!u8lA vCLLn1l nCn ll1 ln!u8lA- MLAnlnC volenu non llL ln[ura llLerally means Lo a wllllng person lL ls noL a wrong" or Lo a wllllng person wrong ls noL done". Lssenually a person ls noL wronged by LhaL Lo whlch he or she consenLed. volenu non llL ln[urla ls based on Lhe prlnclple of assumpuon of rlsk and operaLes as an amrmauve defense. 1he prlnclple conrms LhaL a person who knowlngly and volunLarlly rlsks danger cannoL recover for any resulung ln[ury. vCLLn1l nCn ll1 ln!u8lA- lLLuS18A1lCnS volenu non llL ln[urla operaLes as an lmporLanL defense ln sporLs law. Lxample: lf a ball bowled by Shane WaLson durlng Lhe course of a game of crlckeL ln[ures M.S. uhonl. uhonl cannoL sue WaLson for causlng hlm such ln[ury, because he assumed Lhe lnherenL rlsk of ln[ury by agreelng Lo play Lhe game. 1hls prlnclple ls oen quoLed as a defense ln dangerous advenLure sporLs as well. vCLLn1l nCn ll1 ln!u8lA- LLLMLn1S 1o prove a case of volenu non-llL ln[urla, Lhe clalmanL needs Lo prove Lhe followlng elemenLs- 1haL Lhe clalmanL had compleLe knowledge of Lhe apparenL and lnherenL dangers lnvolved. 1he clalmanL consenLed Lo such acuvlLy fully aware of such dangers. 1haL such consenL was volunLary and noL lnduced or forced.
u8l !uS l8l 8LMLuluM u8l !uS l8l 8LMLuluM- MLAnlnC 1hls maxlm llLerally means, where Lhere ls a rlghL, Lhere ls a remedy". CperaLes as a guldlng prlnclple for courLs, and ls a maxlm of equlLy. 1hls prlnclple hlghllghLs Lhe equlLable and [usuce prlnclples of law, whlch courLs should enforce. lL ls an lnLegral and lnLrlnslc equlLy prlnclple hlghllghung Lhe duLy of courLs and law. u8l !uS l8l 8LMLuluM- ALlCA1lCn lrom speclc performance Lo ln[uncuon and damages, Lhls maxlm has found a place ln sLaLuLory reglmes of law. 1hls rlnclple has 2 prong appllcauon- 8emedy- where a rlghL has been vlolaLed a proporuonal and equlLable remedy shall be provlded. 8lghL- where a rlghL has been lnfrlnged, Lhe aecLed parLy has Lhe rlghL Lo enforce such rlghL Lhrough Lhe acuon of Lhe courL. u8l !uS l8l 8LMLuluM- CASL LAW LxL8ClSL ln llghL of Lhe [udgmenLs covered ln class- reecL of Lhe ways Lhls prlnclple has come Lo llfe. 8e lL Lhe Common Causes Case, nllabau 8ehra or Lhe ramanand v. uCl. 8eecL of Lhe remedlal naLure of Lhe law, and how lnLegral lL ls for Lhe smooLh funcuonlng of our sysLem.
8Lx nCn-C1LS1 LCCA8L 8Lx nCn-C1LS1 LCCA8L- MLAnlnC 1he llLeral meanlng of Lhls maxlm ls Lhe klng can do no wrong". PerberL 8room ln hls book ! #$%$&'() (* +$,-% .-/012 3%-2204$5 -)5 6%%7289-8$5, 10Lh Ld., (London: SweeL & Maxwell LlmlLed, 1939) ls of Lhe vlew LhaL Lhls maxlm musL noL mlsundersLood Lo mean LhaL klng ls above Lhe rule and purpose of laws. nelLher can lL mean LhaL everyLhlng Lhe klng does ls lawful. 1hls maxlm was Lhe sLarung polnL for Lhe evoluuon of Lhe concepL of soverelgn lmmunlLy, whlch ln essence means a governmenL cannoL be sued aL lLs own courLs wlLhouL lLs own consenL, by lLs own cluzens. PL88L81 88CCM- vlLW lL only means, rsL, LhaL Lhe soverelgn, lndlvldually and personally, and ln hls naLural capaclLy, ls lndependenL of and ls noL amenable Lo any oLher earLhly power or [urlsdlcuon, and LhaL whaLever may be amlss ln Lhe condluon of publlc aalrs ls noL Lherefore Lo be lmpuLed Lo Lhe klng, so as Lo render hlm answerable for lL personally Lo hls people. "Secondly, lL means, LhaL Lhe prerogauve of Lhe Crown exLends noL Lo do any ln[ury, because lL ls creaLed for Lhe beneL of Lhe people, and, Lherefore, cannoL be exerLed Lo Lhelr pre[udlce - lL belng a fundamenLal general rule...." 8Lx nCn-C1LS1 LCCA8L- Cu88Ln1 ALlCA1lCn WlLh Lhe evoluuon of sLrlcL consuLuuonal reglmes and law- soverelgn lmmunlLy has been walved by mosL [urlsdlcuons wlLh respecL Lo mosL sub[ecL mauer. [8emember Sahall v. Commlssloner of ollce]. Pence, Lhls maxlm's appllcauon ln Loday's world ls llmlLed Lo Lhe exLenL of Lhe governmenL belng sued for passlng laws.
uLLLCA1uS nCn C1LS1 uLLLCA8L uLLLCA1uS nCn C1LS1 uLLLCA8L- MLAnlnC LlLerally means one Lo whom power ls delegaLed cannoL hlmself delegaLe such power". lL ls an admlnlsLrauve Lool Lo prevenL Lhe clrcle of excesslve delegauon of power. An example ls- lf power Lo conducL elecuons has been delegaLed Lo Lhe Llecuon Commlsslon, Lhe Llecuon Commlsslon cannoL delegaLe such power Lo anoLher agency. uLLLCA1uS nCn C1LS1 uLLLCA8L- LxCL1lCn When a hlgher auLhorlLy delegaLes an auLhorlLy or declslon-maklng power Lo a person or lnsuLuuon, LhaL person or lnsuLuuon cannoL delegaLe such auLhorlLy Lo anoLher unless Lhere ls expllclL auLhorlzauon for lL ln Lhe orlglnal delegauon. 8oLh sub-delegauon and re-delegauon need Lo be auLhorlzed Lo Lhe auLhorlLy Lhe power ls delegaLed Lo. Lxample Lhe elecuon commlsslon cannoL delegaLe lLs power of conducung elecuons Lo Lhe Compeuuon Commlsslon of lndla. Slmllarly Lhe Llecuon Commlsslon cannoL creaLe commluees wlLhln lLself and delegaLe powers Lo Lhem, unless lL ls auLhorlzed. uLLLCA1uS nCn C1LS1 uLLLCA8L- ALlCA1lCn 1he legal maxlm of delgaLee cannoL furLher delegaLe has 2 angels: 1he one delegaLed wlLh Lhe power cannoL furLher delegaLe such power Lo anoLher, unless expressly auLhorlzed. 1he one delegaLed wlLh Lhe power cannoL delegaLe Lo lLself any power noL expressly delegaLed Lo lL, or auLhorlzed Lo be delegaLed Lo lL. Lxample- Lhe elecuon commlsslon cannoL delegaLe Lo lLself Lhe powers beyond Lhe power Lo conducL and manage Lhe elecuons. 1PAnk ?Cu
1hls ls sLudy maLerlal for Lhe mld-semesLer examlnauon and Lhe allocaLed work load for Monday- !uly 22, 2013. 8equesL Lhe class Lo go Lhrough Lhese maLerlals.
leel free Lo emall me on manls2012[lawneL.ucla.edu for any doubLs or clarlcauons, or clarlfy Lhe same durlng or aer class hours.
Lisa Cason v. Edward C. Rolfs, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Revenue of the State of Kansas, Mark Andrews, Director, Personnel Services Bureau, Department of Revenue, State of Kansas, John E. Gillen, State of Kansas, 930 F.2d 32, 10th Cir. (1991)