Subject: Accountants\u27 liability insurance

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_guides/1359/thumbnail.jp

Accountants\u27 Liability and Liability Insurance

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_guides/1895/thumbnail.jp

The Circuit Split on Title VII Personal Supervisor Liability

This Note examines the competing rationales for and against individual supervisor liability under Title VII, and concludes that supervisor liability is the better reasoned view. It explains how courts construe the term employer to either allow or disallow direct supervisor liability. It discusses the rationales for and against individual supervisor liability. It concludes that individual supervisor liability is the better reasoned view, on construction, policy and comparative grounds, and proposes joint and several liability for supervisors and employers in all Title VII cases, which will clarify when respondeat superior liability is appropriate under Title VII. This proposal will deter Title VII violations, remedy plaintiffs appropriately and protect employers from undue vicarious liability

The Strict Liability in Fault and the Fault in Strict Liability

Tort scholars have long been obsessed with the dichotomy between strict liability and liability based on fault or wrongdoing. We argue that this is a false dichotomy. Torts such as battery, libel, negligence, and nuisance are wrongs, yet all are “strictly” defined in the sense of setting objective and thus quite demanding standards of conduct. We explain this basic insight under the heading of “the strict liability in fault.” We then turn to the special case of liability for abnormally dangerous activities, which at times really does involve liability without wrongdoing. Through an examination of this odd corner of tort law, we isolate “the fault in strict liability”—that is, the fault line between the wrongs-based form of strict liability that is frequently an aspect of tort liability and the wrongs-free form of strict liability that is found only within the very narrow domain of liability for abnormally dangerous activities. We conclude by defending these two features of the common law of tort: the strictness of the terms on which it defines wrongdoing and its begrudging willingness to recognize, in one special kind of case, liability without wrongdoing