Point 008. Affiant has no record or evidence that Libellee(s) have not been NOTICED of their obligations for restitution under Vicarious Liability, as per EXHIBIT 008 - NOTICE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY.ADMIT - Libellees admit Libellees actions did create vicarious liability toward Affiant.

EXHIBIT 008 - NOTICE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY

VICARIOUS LIABILITY - When one person is liable for the negligent actions of another person, even though the first person was not directly responsible for the injury. For instance, a parent sometimes can be vicariously liable for the harmful acts of a child and an employer sometimes can be vicariously liable for the acts of a worker. Vicarious liability is a legal concept that means that a party may be held responsible for injury or damage, when in reality they were not actively involved in the incident. Parties that may be charged with vicarious liability are generally in a supervisory role over the person or parties personally responsible for the injury/damage. The implications of vicarious liability are that the party charged is responsible for the actions of their subordinates. This applies especially to corporate and governmental entities.There are a variety of situations in which a party may be charged with vicarious liability. Contractors may face charged of vicarious liability if their subcontractors fail to complete a job, perform the job incorrectly, or are found guilty of other contract violations. Parents have been charged with vicarious liability when the actions of their children cause harm or damage. Employers can face a number of situations involving vicarious liability issues, including sexual harassment of one employee by another, discriminatory behavior by an employee against fellow employees or customers, or any other action in which one of their employees personally causes harm, even if that employee acts against the policies of the employer. And most recently, vicarious liability suits are being explored against the manufacturers of mobile phones whose use contributes to car accidents. The intent behind vicarious liability is that the proper party must be held responsible when harm is done. Parents, for instance, have a responsibility to ensure that their children function within society's laws. In some cases, however, a vicarious liability charge is based upon an unreasonable expectation of the defendant's ability to control a person or situation. For clarity, the following definitions are included;Fiction of Law: An assumption or supposition of law that something which is or maybe false is true, or that a state of facts exists which has never really taken place. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition.

Legal Fiction: Assumption of fact made by court as basis for deciding a legal question. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition.

All artificial persons are Fictions of Law, which are created by the intent of a man or men for the specific purpose expressed by agreement and memorilized on a charter or other written document .. Therefore, all corporations, trusts, D.B.A. 's (doing business-as) are legal fictions. This concludes with the statement that all artificial persons of whatever construction method are limited absolutely by the charter, the express intent supplied by a man or men, who created them.

In essence, man is playing Creator when he creates an artificial person, which leads to the premis that the authorizing man or men are responsible for their creation. Which in turn states the premis that the Creator may alter or abolish the created by exercise of will in the same manner as the authorization for the creation in the first place. Also, when the artificial person goes astray, the living man or woman that is receiving benefits from that artificial person is responsible to restore and recompense for the injury.

The liability of corporations in tortIn English law, a corporation can only act through its employees and agents so it is necessary to decide in which circumstances the law of agency or vicarous liability will apply to hold the corporation liable in tort for the frauds of its directors or senior officers. If liability for the particular tort requires a state of mind, then to be liable, the director or senior officer must have that state of mind and it must be attributed to the company. In Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Limited v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500, two employees of the company, acting within the scope of their authority but unknown to the directors, used company funds to acquire some shares. The question was whether the company knew, or ought to have known that it had acquired those shares. The Privy Council held that it did. Whether by virtue of their actual or ostensible authority as agents acting within their authority (see Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716) or as employees acting in the course of their employment (see Armagas Limited v Mundogas S.A. [1986] 1 AC 717), their acts and omissions and their knowledge could be attributed to the company, and this could give rise to liability as joint tortfeasors where the directors have assumed responsibility on their own behalf and not just on behalf of the company.So if a director or officer is expressly authorised to make representations of a particular class on behalf of the company, and fraudulently makes a representation of that class to a Third Party causing loss, the company will be liable even though the particular representation was an improper way of doing what he was authorised to do. The extent of authority is a question fact and is significantly more than the fact of an employment which gave the employee the opportunity to carry out the fraud. In Panorama Developments (Guildford) Limited v Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Limited [1971] 2 QB 711, a company secretary fraudulently hired cars for his own use without the knowledge of the managing director. A company secretary routinely enters into contracts in the company's name and has administrative responsibities that would give apparent authority to hire cars. Hence, the company was liable.

Vicarious LiabilityVicarious liability imposes liability on one person for a tortious act committed by another. There are a number of contexts in which this arises.Joint and Several LiabilityIf two or more defendants are found liable for an indivisible injury, the defendants will be held jointly and severally liable. This means that each defendant is liable for the entire award regardless of the individual degree of fault. vicarious liability n. sometimes called "imputed liability," attachment of responsibility to a person for harm or damages caused by another person in either a negligence lawsuit or criminal prosecution. Thus, an employer of an employee who injures someone through negligence while in the scope of employment (doing work for the employer) is vicariously liable for damages to the injured person. In most states a participant in a crime (like a hold-up) may be vicariously liable for murder if another member of the gang shoots and kills a shopkeeper or policeman.

Vicarious liability in the United StatesThis is generally applied to crimes that affect the public welfare but which do not require the imposition of a prison term. The principle is that in such cases, the public interest is more important than private interest, and so vicarious liability is imposed to deter or to create incentives for employers to impose stricter rules and supervise more closely. In Commonwealth v. Koczwara, 155 A.2d 825 (1959) the defendant was the licensed operator of a tavern which was found to have supplied minors with alcohol. The offence became one of strict or absolute liability when applied vicariously because of the need to protect weak and vulnerable members of society, and the omission of words such as "knowingly", "willfully" or "intentionally" in some of the offences indicated a legislative intent to permit this eventuality. Staples v United States 511 US 600 (1994), the defendant was convicted of being in possession of an unregistered machinegun. It was a rifle that had been modified for rapid fire, thereby putting it in violation of the National Firearms Act. The court said it was irrelevant that he did not know about the modification because statutes regulating dangerous weapons are public welfare statutes and can be interpreted to exclude the mens rea requirement of knowledge. Hence, as long as defendants knows that they are dealing with a dangerous product or device that places them in a responsible relationship to the pubic, they should recognise that strict regulations are more likely and assume that Congress would intend to place the burden on the defendant to ascertain at his peril whether his conduct comes within the inhibition of the statute.The courts generally convict employers for the illegal conduct of their employees even though the employers had no knowledge and so were not at fault. But in State v. Guminga 395 NW2d 344 (Minn. 1986) 337 where a waitress served alcohol to a minor, the court found that the conviction of her employer violated the Due Process Clause and so was not constitutional under Minnesota law. Consequently, the defendant should only be given civil not criminal penalties. It is noted that this prohibition had been in force since 1905 which had given the legislature many years in which to reform the law. The majority rejected the argument of implied legislative intent. The issue of constitutionality in the form of a substantive due process clause requires a balancing of public interests and personal liberty.