回複：It is pilot's fault

Is the instant case similar to driving a car? In your example the speeding driver could hold you liable as well. Vicarious liability states that if you encourage, aid, or act in furtherance of the conduct, you will be vicariously liable. Such encouragement does not have to express. Let's see your friend is speeding, you did not stop him. Yes the speeding tickets will be issued to him, but he could hold you liable civilly for the speeding because your conduct impliedly encouraged him. Also, in your example the driver has exclusive control of the car.

In the instant case, is there any evidence who did it wrong? What went wrong? Does the author say specifically whose fault it was? So we can not assume.

Let's say if you are the owner and the boat came back damaged and nobody would admit who did it wrong, what would you do? Most courts will treat the case as joint and several liabilities and the defendant has the burden to prove that he did not do it. Even if there is only one defendant named, he could in turn sue other defendants for contribution.

This is tort not contract so that only one guy signed the agreement does not release liability of others.

所有跟帖： 

• 回複：回複：It is pilot's fault -三鍋頭- ♀ (306 bytes) () 12/06/2005 postreply 15:18:55

• 回複：回複：回複：It is pilot's fault -66196- ♀ (917 bytes) () 12/06/2005 postreply 16:33:45

• 66196's advice is an very interesting law -iamhere- ♀ (63 bytes) () 12/06/2005 postreply 19:10:29

• You are so kind -68156- ♀ (1137 bytes) () 12/06/2005 postreply 19:46:55