Throughout the case of Tardif vs Wiebe the concepts of liability are explored. Both in which situation it arises and the consequence that go along with it when a business is held responsible. The case study provides an excellent example of liability.
Vicarious liability is explained as when an “employer is liable for the injuries caused by employees during their employment” (Yates, R.A., 2016). This idea brings the question of whether the liability businesses are held to is too much. In my opinion I think the approach vicarious liability takes is fair and reasonable. An employer is responsible for insuring employees know the roles of their jobs and how to conduct themselves accordingly. If an indecent happens with the employees involving other employees or customers,
…show more content…
I believe a business should be held responsible for employee’s improper actions when they have not been given the information to know it was wrong, such as in the Tardif vs Wiebe case. As the case makes it clear Wiebe was not an experienced bouncer nor was he informed of the parameters of the job and what the expectations of proper conduct were (Tardif v Wiebe, 1996, pg 4). Even though it was Poburn, a friend of the defendant Wiebe, who hired him (Tardif v Wiebe, 1996, pg.4), it was still the hotels duty to make sure that Wiebe was given these proper instructions of conduct. If an employee is responsible for wrongful actions after he has already been told of what is acceptable and knows the severity of the consequence these actions will lead to, it is not the businesses job to be held liable. The business has already taken the right steps to inform the employee and cannot do anymore to ensure they follow the instructions. While I believe the amount of liability vicarious liability holds a business to is reasonable, I do not believe that the employer is always at fault for their employee’s actions and should be held