Analysis

Critical Analysis Of The Jimmy Saville Case In Relation To Vicarious Liability In Tort

Abstract

The Vicarious liability is when a person is legally responsible for another person committed the tort when it has made a mistake. Considering the case of Jimmy Savile, this paper discusses the injustice that is done through the vicarious liability in tort. This paper analyses the various aspects of Jimmy Savile case, a famous BBC personality who is accused of being a paedophile after a year of his death and now BBC is liable for his actions. The study is conducted on the basis of journals and web articles on both vicarious liability in tort and Jimmy Savile case and it is concluded that the act is unjust in many situations.
Key Words: Vicarious liability, tort, Jimmy Savile

Chapter One: Introduction

Background
For decades, Jimmy Savile was an integral part of British television, a host of eccentric and humorous programs for children who tirelessly raised funds for charity. When he died last year at age 84, then as Sir Jimmy, thousands of fans paid tribute to him, including Prince Charles.
Now several women claim that “Sir Jimmy” was also a sexual predator of young girls.
The accusations have generated waves of outrage, but not much surprise. For a long time, say colleagues, there were rumors. Why nobody did anything is the main question now.
Child advocates say the case is comparable with that of football coach Jerry Sandusky Penn State and another in the English town of Rockdale, where a group of men arranged to vulnerable young for sex. Officials in both places have been criticized for not responding to abuse complaints[1].
Considering the case of Jimmy Savile under the vicarious liability in Tort law, after the death of Savile the responsibility of his acts lies upon the shoulders of BBC. The vicarious liability is governed by Article 1384 of the Civil Code, and in particular the first paragraph which states:
“We are responsible not only for the damage he causes by his own act, but also one that is caused by the people whom he is responsible, or things that are in his custody[2].”
Thus, five scenarios are possible for this type of responsibility:

  • The parents because their children
  • The masters because of their domestic
  • The teachers because their students
  • The constituents because of their employees
  • The artisans because of their apprentices

Along with these five hypotheses described by law, jurisprudence will develop a system of general liability of another person under whom he is responsible, taking the first paragraph of Article 1384as a base. This system is used especially for juvenile offenders and the disabled[3].

Responsibility vicariously draws its logic from the insolvency of others. Indeed, through the current victimologist began with the development of insurance, the priority is to repair the damage suffered by the victim. Therefore subjective responsibility in which the fault based is over. Today we are in a system of strict liability in which the evidence of guilt is unnecessary.

Purpose of Research
The purpose of this research is to critically analyse the case of Jimmy Savile and present studies and literature against the vicarious liability, the system of overall responsibility for others. This system is the one developed by the jurisprudence alongside liability regimes regulated in Article 1384. The system was consecrated on 29 March 1991 by the Plenary Assembly in Case Blieck. In this case, a mentally handicapped person confined in a specialized centre had set fire to a forest. Theoretically it was responsible, but in practice insolvent. Therefore, the Court had made a departure from precedent because it had considered the association took care of the disabled as responsible as it is she who is responsible for controlling his lifestyle. This decision showed that section 1384 was not complete and that there were other cases.

Aim
The aim of this research is to critically analyse the Jimmy Saville case in relation to Vicarious Liability in Tort.

Hypothesis
The hypothesis developed for this study is that the vicarious liability in Tort is an unjust law in most cases as one person or organisation cannot be held fully accountable for the acts of another person or organisation regardless of what circumstances as everyone is responsible for their own acts.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

2.1. Introduction
Vicarious liability arises when one party is accountable for the tort of another. This situation occurs often when an employer is held liable for the torts committed by an employee. An employer can only be held responsible for the torts of an employee, not for an independent contractor. In the Civil Code in 1804, different cases of vicarious liability was expected, it was of spec exhaustively listed and therefore gold these special cases, there was no vicarious liability’s phenomenon similar to that observed for doing things in terms of doing things, the law created principle of liability for vicarious liability case law has also devoted a general principle, but mu
after this had been done for doing things[4].

2.2. Recognition of A Theory of Liability Of Others: The Basis of Article 1314 Al 1i
Have been felt in me second half of me twentieth S, since 1956, me Council of State argued that mere was a liability of public authorities for damage caused by a minor hospital It is from this period that have multiplied instances in which children, prisoners, people with disabilities are placed in a semi-freedom, open, placed with an institution. New methods of treatment of mentally ill offenders and promoted these investments. What we might add mat me breakup of me family also help ensure mat children are placed with high person other than the parents But all these methods are intended to promote the production of damage fairly quickly and the question arose whether the center[5]. The answer was whether such damages. And the question is asked with even more acute here man it is in the presence of parental responsibility towards children or principals to clerks in any of ‘vicarious liability under Article 1384, it needed a general principle. The Plenary of the Supreme Court 29 March 1991, Case BLIECK, has taken the step to admit mat association could be responsible for the act of a disabled minor placed with her and had caused injury.

2.2.1. The Implementation of the Principle
A- uncertainty caused by the judgment Blieck:
In stopping a disabled parole had set tire to the forest of neighboring property, the association had supported this disability is responsible? The Supreme Court admitted the she approved the trial judges have rightly decided that the association was liable pursuant to Article 1384 al st the association had accepted the responsibility of organizing and controlling permanent way of life of the disabled. Ago in the aftermath of this solution, which has led to a threefold uncertainty[6].

  • Uncertainty in the area of responsibility, “the association had accepted the responsibility of organizing and controlling a permanent lifestyle of the disabled. “Should we see here the criteria for vicarious liability? In this case, it was a combination of where the question should be in the presence of a professional? ls this criteria custody of others? Should there be a permanent control over others to implement Article 1384 al 2?
  • Uncertainty about the liability regime: while the problem was that it was the strength of the presumption, presumption of blame or liability full rights? The question seems much more difficult at this time for vicarious liability is sometimes found a presumption of fault, sometimes a presumption of liability for such constituents[7]. The plenary has not settled and refuses to formally dedicate a general principle. She said that the association is responsible under Article 1384 ar lst , so stop said there is room for vicarious liability except in cases of special code.
  • Uncertainty about the basis or liability Is It the fault with the association that would check me poorly monitored evil lifestyle, the control test orient this responsibility to me fault, but rather will accept to organize risk. Seen off Blieck raises a number of questions, a landmark is hatless, plenum but rejection, we could say that we base this judgment Jeand’heur stop waiting.

2.3. Subsequent Jurisprudence:
Regime of vicarious liability on the basis of Article 1384 al 1 S:
2.3.1. As to the scope:
A number have taken off the case of The judgment Blieck liability of an association, it has extended solution to the case of home from which minors are placed in danger within the meaning of section 1375 and especially more surprising the Supreme court decided to apply Article 1384 al 1sI a sports associations for damages caused by their players In two judgments or 22 May 1995 during a rugby player team was injured by a player of the other and asked the repair of the damage to the club team[8]. The trial court had granted the request, saying that the association was the principal players and these attendants. The Supreme Court in both cases dismissed the appeal but by making a substitution pattern, she says with sports associations responsible for organizing, directing and controlling the activities of their members during sports competitions which they participate are responsible within the meaning or Article 1384 al 1st damage they cause to the occasion.

This opening will be found in a judgment of 12 December 2002 in a combination of cheerleader. In contrast grandparents seem excluded from the vicarious liability judgment 18 September 1996 and judgment of 5 February 2004
When is the guardian? Case of 25 February 1998: the guardian is not responsible for the actions of me protected person on me basis of Article 1384 al 1st but this was a solution to this case because there was to determine what the Supreme Court c is that time of the injury me child was not under the control of me guardian, however, in a judgment of the Criminal Chamber of 28 March 2000, the responsibility of the tutor was chosen since it had accepted the responsible for organizing and controlling a permanent way of lire of the minor, thus widening the area of responsibility[9].

2.4. The conditions apply
Two questions arise here:

  • To be responsible for the need of others must still have “custody case law requires authorities to organize control, direct, activity or lifestyle! However the law does not require it to exercise power over others on a permanent basis, a sports association has no permanent power over others. What is the design that retains the jurisprudence of this care, legal or material? On the contrary by the law retains a legal concept as attached to a legal or judicial decision, this solution emerges from a judgment of 6 June 2002, children placed in a home and the weekend coming home they cause damage: Supreme Court says that the home’s mission which had been entrusted by the juvenile court judge, this mission remains as no judicial decision has not suspended or interrupted. The focus is therefore vicariously liable even when the damage the child was returned home; it is indeed a legal custody.
  • Should the act committed by the person whose answer is either a fault? The Supreme Court requires that the fault is either a fact which led to the Isolation of parental responsibility on this issue.

2.5. As for the liability regime:
Stop Criminal Division March 26, 1997: Our Lady of the waves, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the vicarious liability within the meaning of Article 1364 al 1st is the responsibility of full rights but this went a problem harmonization with other pension liability of others. For example on the basis of Article 1384 al 4 there was a presumption of fault, while on the first paragraph of a presumption of liability. The plan called for the general principle of harmonization and the need to review the liability regime of parents to their children, what is stopping Bertrand, 25 February 1997, stopping Bertrand can be understood that light of the judgment of the Blieck and suites, this judgment has aligned system of parental responsibility, that of Article 1384 al.lst, responsibility for full rights[10].

2.6. Implementation of the overall responsibility of vicarious
The conditions of this responsibility

2.6.1. The care of others
It is defined as the ability to organize, direct and control the lifestyle or activity of others. Stop dated 2000 states that the accountability system is based on the care of others.

This raises the question of the origin of the guard, as to whether this power is given by a legal act or whether it is a simple fact of power. The decisions seem to favour the legal approach of the guard (that is to say, by judicial decision or contract).

There is also the question of temporality of the guard, as to whether it should be permanent or temporary. Two judgments of the Court of Cassation dated 1995 and 2000 retain the criterion of non-permanent guard: The guard must be realized for a sufficient time to establish the ratio of guard. Two situations are possible[11]:

1. Custody is permanent guardian will be liable even if he did not exercise his power materially guard when harmful.

2. Custody is intermittent or temporary but occurs under conditions sufficient to establish the ratio of caution: the responsibility of the guardian is liable if the tort feasor was under his effective power when the damage was caused.

Vicarious
Grounds for exemption
Two scenarios are possible:

1. If the system of liability is based on fault: the guardian may exempt himself from liability by proving that he himself has committed no fault.

2. If the liability system is right: according to the judgment of Notre Dame Waves 2 , “The people must answer vicariously within the meaning of Article 1384 , paragraph 1st of the Civil Code can s’ exempt from strict liability arising from the text showing that they have committed no fault. ” This means that the exemption may not take place except by proving force majeure or that the damage appears to initial fault of the victim.

The extent of the overall responsibility of vicarious
The guardian of others can be a legal person, is against more problematic for individuals. A judgment of the Court of Cassation dated 2000 allows a guardian may be liable for damage caused by minor entrusted to him, since he has a lot of power on his ward and on the basis of Article 1384 s 1. Another judgment of the Court of Cassation dated 2006 does not recognize the curator responsible vicariously. On grandparents, a judgment dated 2004 declares not responsible due to their grandchildren.

The aggregate liability
The aggregate liability derives its logic once again current victimologist. Several officials equate to a larger base and thus a better solvency fault. It is therefore possible to combine responsibilities:

  • Parents and teacher for the minor
  • Parents and a craftsman for the minor
  • State and an association for disabled adult

A judgment of the Court of Cassation dated 1981 excluded the possibility of cumulative parent / principal[12]. On the other hand, the interpretation of doctrine of a judgment of 2002 was a failure accumulation parents / association for the minor.

Art 1384 s 4
“The father and mother as they exercise parental authority are jointly and severally liable for the damage caused by their minor children living with them.”

This article does precisely that the father and mother of the child. It refers to another article about the guardians or other responsible.

Conditions of parental responsibility are:

  • The minority of the child;
  • Parentage and parental authority;
  • The coexistence of the child with his parents;
  • The harmful causal or simply three of the child.

Exemption
The judgment of 19 February 1997, 2nd Civil Chamber, “Bertrand” decides that “fathers and mothers cannot be exonerated by the evidence of the absence of fault.” Parents can not exempt itself by establishing a case of force majeure (due to total exemption) or even demonstrating the fault of the victim, which can be a cause of partial or total exemption (total if it has the character of the force majeure)[13].

Art 1384 s 5
“Teachers and principals (are jointly responsible) for the damage caused by their servants and attendants in the functions they have used”

Conditions the responsibility of principals because of their officers is:

  • Relationship of agent
  • A harmful
  • The attachment of harmful report preposition

The responsibility of the teacher because of his pupils
Article 1384, paragraph 6 of the Civil Code.
It is valid for public school teachers but also private schools under contract. This responsibility requires that a student has caused damage by his own fault and that this damage is occurred while the student was under the supervision of the teacher. Then you have a fault of the teacher that will result from a lack of supervision, a certain amount of risk or non-compliance with the rules of discipline. Therefore the responsibility of the teacher will not be liable in the event that he was unable to prevent the damage[14].

If the conditions of liability are fulfilled, the action for damages is brought against the State substituted for the teacher. This action will be subject to a special regime and brought before a court of law. The limitation period is 3 years (whether for a personal fault of the teacher or a service fault).

The state has a remedy against the teacher in case of serious misconduct on his part.

2.10. Responsibility because of their artisan’s apprentice
This responsibility is incurred by a craftsman, ie the professional who performs an activity on behalf of one hand or with the help of an apprentice that is responsible for forming the rules of business (Article 1384-6). It is a liability for negligence. It establishes a presumption of fault craftsman considering that if the learner has committed a shame it is because he has failed in its duty of supervision or training[15].

Responsibility of the architect beyond mere apprenticeship.
The conditions implementing this responsibility

  • The apprentice must have committed a tort within the meaning of Articles 1382 and 1383 or 1384-1.
  • It takes a learning relationship. This relationship follows necessarily from the apprenticeship contract but does not necessarily imply that there is an apprenticeship. Thus the learning contract establishes a relationship of learning but not vice versa.
  • It takes a community of life between the craftsman and the apprentice that is strong in the apprentice craftsman.
  • The effects of this liability are a liability based on a presumption of fault of the craftsman. This may be exempt if he proves that he had committed no fault in the monitoring or training of the apprentice. It may also show that the damage is due to a force majeure.

Responsibility of teachers because their students
Under Article 1384-5 origin varies with:

  • Public education: we substituted the responsibility of the state to that of teachers. So only the state can be assigned responsibility in an administrative court. This responsibility requires that we prove the fault of the teacher in its oversight, the damage must have occurred and which involves a student (committed or suffered by a student).
  • Private education: the responsibility of the teacher may be initiated on the basis of Articles 1382 and 1383 for damage caused by a student or a student. Must prove that the teacher made a mistake or oversight of education. Example: A student who is injured in the yard because the teacher was not watching.
    The responsibility of a teacher cannot be initiated if the fault of the latter was the sole cause of injury. It may be exonerated by showing that the fault of the victim or the existence of the third of which in both cases has the characteristics of force majeure.

Liability of principals because of their officer: Article 1384-5
The conditions of liability

  • Should a subordinate relationship between master and servant. It is under the control and authority of the principal. Example: contract work
  • The employee must have committed a tort because the principal is liable for damage caused by the fault of the employee. It is the victim to establish the existence of the fault.
  • Requires that the tort was committed in exercise of its functions to engage the responsibility of the customer.

When the mission entrusted to him gave him the opportunity to cause damage, the customer should be responsible for it while the harmful constitutes an abuse of the function[16]?

In a landmark judgment of 19 May 1988, the plenary asked three cumulative conditions to admit that the principal may exempt himself from liability. First, the agent must act outside the functions for which it is used, and then the agent must have acted without authorization from the principal. Finally, the agent must have acted for purposes unrelated to his duties.

The effects of this responsibility If all conditions are met, the liability of the principal is engaged right for tortuous acts of his agent. It cannot be released by proving that it was not at fault because we are in the presence of a presumption of risk and not at fault.

The victim has an alternative:

  • Bring an action against the principal (generally) because it is provided mostly very generally solvable.

The customer will be exempt if he proves that the damage is due to an external cause or abuse of official function.

  • Action against the employee has committed personal foul detachable functions[17].

Chapter Three: Methodology

3.1. Introduction
This is a methodology section that will facilitate with the comprehensive details about theoretical framework of this study and the suitability for identifying the point of the study whereas talking about the design of research, researcher’s role, questions and sub questions answered in the study, method of data collection and analysis.

3.2. Research Methodology
The major task of any science is getting insight and selecting the most appropriate method that enables us to understand the actual fact is therefore important one. The issue appears in believing the erroneous skills or vice versa[18]. Deductive and Inductive methods have both diverse objectives and perhaps summed up as theory analysis and theory development, respectively. Usually, inductive method is connected with qualitative way of research whereas the deductive method is frequently connected with quantitative way of research[19].

Dawson[20] describe qualitative approaches of study as “a collection of interpretive approaches, which look for describe, decode, interprets and otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not the incidence, of sure more or less naturally according term in the society world.” About all research will contain some numerical information that could usefully be quantified to guide responses, study questions and to complete main goals.

The use of these two methods in the study could likely assist correct the biases inbuilt in each method, but the reality that quantitative approach is the most common applied is not unintentionally but from the development of the scientific method during the years. It is believed that logic that quantification enhanced the understanding about the world around us. Qualitative method of research is recognised to be descriptive, employing words and images, instead of numerical figures to convey the outcomes of the research study[21]. Therefore, the secondary approach for research will be selected as the better approach to conduct this research study.

3.3. Data Collection Sources
The way or instrument of data collection is any resource that employs the research worker to access phenomena and obtain appropriate information. The instrument itself combines and observes all previous studies: sums up the contributing role of the framework to select data matching to the indicators and, thus, the concepts and variables will be employed, as well as create the design particularly for this research. Through appropriate erection of data collection instruments, the study will accomplish the necessary connection between theoretical concepts and realitiesm[22].

3.3.1. Secondary sources used in research
Information or data was gathered from handbooks, journals, archives of the history of Middle East, books and websites.

3.4. Analysis of Data
After the collection process of data, it was thoroughly analysed based on the research questions as mentioned above and the basic aim of the research. For secondary research, vital points, outcomes, findings and conclusions of the studies and researches reviewed were examined so as to present a better understanding and insight of the subject matter[23]. The reason behind is that the research’s nature is mostly investigative, and it is usually admitted that, for inductive and investigative research, qualitative way of research is best, because this method can lead us to building the hypothesis and explanations.

3.5. Ethical Issues
Gathering reliable and appropriate knowledge about the world is, definitely, a valuable target in itself. Though, it is not unavoidably the only or eventual goal in the average people’s lives[24]. Other objectives usually every day aspirations of human life comprise innumerable practices of daily life, or in general: personal happiness, security, harmony and peace, benefit from autonomy of action and of other different human privileges, and for some the personal deliverance of the soul. The knowledge collected by research, to accomplish any of these, can assist in certain occasions, but not always. It must be needless to indicate that in science one of the most damaging unlawful activities is distortion of data its outcomes. The most unpleasant damage is being led to the malefactor faultily a degree; the worst is that may be fantasy information will be employed in good faith to others that can cause to much fruitless work. Thus, it will be made sure that the data or information employed in the study is suitable and reliable.

Chapter Four: Discussion

4.1. Discussion
The charges against Savile exposed in a documentary, “Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile”, shown on Wednesday on ITV British television. The program claims that Savile abused girls in his Rolls-Royce, in a mobile home and headquarters of BBC television. Includes interviews with a woman who says Savile sexually assaulted her while she attended a school for children with special needs in Duncroft, near London, and a former employee of the BBC who says he saw the artist molesting a 14 years. The BBC said no one filed any complaints from Savile while working there. Moreover, the BBC has done extensive searches on file to establish whether there is any record of misconduct on the part of Sir Jimmy Savile during his years at the BBC. No evidence was found. Savile’s family has condemned the vilification of a man who is not alive to defend himself[25]. Mark Williams-Thomas, who made the documentary, insisted it was right to address this sensitive issue and allow these women to have a voice, the voice that nobody heard as children. However with time and proper investigation, Savile was found guilty.

When nearly a year ago Jimmy Savile died, all the obituaries remembered him as an eccentric man, a genius that has long led in the BBC ‘Top of the Pops’, one of the most famous music programs pop history, and ‘Jim’ll Fix It’, a kind of ‘Surprise, Surprise’ British but well made. A popular DJ, who spent his free time to charity and hobnobbed with royalty and the cream of UK.A man extremely popular for their generosity, however, coinciding with the anniversary of his death, ITV1 chain issued last October 3 documentary ‘The Other Side of Jimmy Savile’ in which several victims and witnesses accuse him of paedophilia. since the testimonies that confirm the ex detective suspicions and documentary director Mark Williams-Thomas has not only increased, questioning the credibility of the BBC and drawing a paedophile ring in which might be involved former members of the UK government[26].

The director general of the BBC, George Entwistle, argued before Parliament Britain station response against scandal child sexual abuse of one of its main presenters during the 60s, 70s and 80s, Jimmy Savile, although accepted that the case calls into question the reliability and reputation of the corporation[27]. Entwistle told the Parliamentary Committee on Culture and Means, that much was done since emerged allegations “very, very serious” against Savile. According to the director a “cultural problem” of the BBC allowed the presenter died on October 29, 2011 to 84 years committed abuses. The public broadcaster is investigating five of ten “serious allegations” of abuse of Savile current employees and former employees of the company. There is no doubt what made Jimmy Savile and how BBC behaved in recent years, the culture and practices the station seem to have allowed Savile do what he did. All this will create serious issues reliability and reputation for the channel.

This is a gravely serious matter and one that BBC cannot see with horror that frankly is amazing their activities (sexual abuse) is not detected for so long, Meanwhile Savile rated Yard, also worked as a disc jockey, as an abuser sexual “predator” and said that the presenter would sexually abused many people, including girls and disabled men and women for a period more than 40 years, thus opened a criminal investigation to clarify these crimes. The situation is so serious that it was reported the first Minister David Cameron, who said the BBC “has many questions to answer.” The British chain was at the centre of the scandal after be revealed this week that covered up abuse cases child sexual by Savile.

The editor of Newsnight program content, Peter Rippon, resigned amid questions about why the news cycle cancelled an investigation into the presenter. The director general of the BBC was questioned today about an alleged conversation he had with the director of corporate news, Helen Boaden, on December 2, 2011 in which the woman told Newsnight’s investigation could impact seriously tributes planned in Savile honour. It was said that if the program went air, BBC would be forced to change the whole schedule of programs Christmas. According to John Whittingdale, chairman of parliamentary committee Culture, revelations leave the BBC “very bad off[28].” The BBC has been badly damaged by this scandal and how they tried to solve in recent weeks. AS IF uncovered Savile alleged abuses were finally revealed earlier this month of October for a string rival, ITV, which broadcast the testimonies of five women who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by the presenter when they were minors[29]. This encouraged other alleged victims to speak. Given the proportions taken by the scandal, in the there could be up to 200 victims, the BBC commissioned investigate independently allegations. In addition, Judge of the Court of Appeal in London Janet Smith will lead a review of the practices of the BBC during the period when he worked for Savile Company, in addition to examining whether issuing policies on child protection and complaints work properly. Today two companies created in the name of charity Savile said closed after scandal. The Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust and Stoke Mandeville Hospital Trust reported that no longer work, because now the name of the presenter is spotted by dozens of alleged cases of abuse sex.

The Waterfront which also seems to be behind the BBC: not only its employees were silent for decades before the evidence that in the facilities of the BBC, Savile raped minors, but also in December last year cancelled a research that was driving about. Apparently the in-depth reporting program Newsnight was scheduled to broadcast this piece but ultimately decided that it would not air because it coincided with a series of tributes in memory of the same chain Savile had prepared[30].

Once ‘The Other Side of Jimmy Savile’ has broken the silence, police have received more than 200 calls from other alleged victims of Savile. Some fans were teenagers, fascinated by the power and fame[31]; they approached the mouth of the wolf. Others, however, supposedly reside in hospitals and orphanages to which Savile often came as part of its extensive social work. Hospitals that already noted three doctors as alleged contact Savile would also abused children in the centres, in addition to acting as potential nodes of a network of paedophiles.

Although police and Scotland Yard have not yet sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a paedophile ring, British MP Tom Watson suggested in the House of Commons on Wednesday that there was. And, to make matters worse, she was involved in a close to a former prime minister. Though the scope of this scandal is to be determined and many of the emerging stories end up being false or partially true, the fact is that ‘The Other Side of Jimmy Savile’ has opened the can of worms[32].

His past as creepy abuser impacts the cosy image left Savile among British viewers. It was almost the icon of goodness, a kind of magician king of television that raised more money for charity than many other familiar faces. One of its best-known programs called Jim’ll fix It (Jim will fix it). It actually made Savile desires of its viewers (usually children), he was told to hand scrawled letters he read live.

4.2. Hypothesis
Vicarious liability can be seen as unfair as it contradicts the basic ‘fault’ principle of tort law.

In the documentary, different victims narrate in detail the sexual abuse to which they were subjected by Jimmy Savile, sometimes at the offices of the BBC, when they were, in most cases, 14 to 15 years. The stories of these women are now complemented by the statements of relatives and colleagues who tell how the environment Savile was known to have relations with minors. Some even had witnessed. But while he was alive the answer was always the same: the law of silence. However, punishing someone for a crime that he did not commit is unjust. There have been cases where the vicarious liability was not applied, for instance, in Trotman v North Yorkshire County Council (1999)[33], where the employer was not held responsible for the tortuous actions of their employees who were accused on committing the crime of sexual harassment on a male student. The general feeling of the court was that the more severe the crime of the employee, the less likely and less fair it will be for the employer to be held vicariously liable for the act. Hence, the acts of Jimmy Savile are extremely severe and as per the case of Trotman v North Yorkshire County Council (1999), BBC should be not be held liable for his actions.

Chapter Five: Conclusion

According to the rule mentioned in vicarious liability cases, the main server and “are subject to joint and several liability.” Joint and several liability contained in the rule implies that the alleged victim may be triggered by the whole of indemnity against the direct perpetrator or the responsible civil interchangeably. This solution, at first glance, appears to be quite adequate. The accusations of paedophilia against Jimmy Savile are not new: the name of the British TV star came during investigations by the horrors committed in the Haut de la Garenne orphanage , where systematic abuse and maltreatment of children during decades. But there were no specific allegations against Savile and involve never the case. On a couple of occasions, the odd reporter asked about that, but the matter was buried: Jimmy Savile was untouchable. So far no one had dared to question the honour of Knight Bachelor former, but research by Mark Williams -Thomas leaves no doubt.

In terms of the situation between employee and employer, making the employer tort feaser as well as the employee when it was only employees own fault is unfair, as the person responsible for the acts should be held accountable and no one else. Every person is independent, self thinking individual whom is able to understand the consequences of committing a crime. Moreover, another aspect that makes vicarious liability in tort unjust is that employers might expressly forbid an act or a conduct a certain activity and the employee still commits it, the employer should not be liable. In the case of Jimmy Savile, BBC was unaware of the acts committed by the paedophile hence accusing BBC liable for the act of Savile is unjust.

References

Alex Stevenson, Analysis: How did Jimmy Savile escape justice?, politics.co.uk., http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/01/11/analysis-how-did-jimmy-savile-escape-justice (2013)

B.S. Markesinis et al., Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003)

Dawson, Catherine, Practical Research Methods, New Delhi, (UBS Publishers’ Distributors, 2002)

Finlo Rohrer, Jimmy Savile: Erasing the memory, BBC News Magazine, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20165466 (2012)

Fetterman, D. Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: the silent scientific revolution, New York, (Praeger, 1988)

Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. ‘Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies?’ in D. Fetterman (ed.) Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: the silent scientific revolution, (New York, Praeger, 1988) (pp. 89-115)

Greene, J. ‘Mixed method evaluation: a way of democratically engaging with difference’, Evaluation Journal of Australasia 2, 2: 23-29 (2002)

Gary T. Schwartz, The Hidden and Fundamental Issue of Employer Vicarious Liability, 69 S. CAL. L. REv. 1739, 1740 (1996)

Gary T. Schwartz, “The Hidden and Fundamental Issue of Employer Vicarious Liability” (1996)

Justice Keith Mason, “Fault, Causation And Responsibility: Is Tort Law Just an Instrument of Corrective Justice?” (2000)

Johnson, R. and Onwuegbuzie, A., ‘mixed methods research: a research paradigm, whose time has come, Educational Researcher 33, 7: 14-26 (2004)

Josh Halliday, Jimmy Savile victims: case studies, The Guardian: Media, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jan/11/jimmy-savile-report-case-studies

Kumar, Ranjit, Research Methodology-A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, (2nd.ed), Singapore, (Pearson Education, 2005)

Kothari, C.R., Research Methodology-Methods and Techniques, New Delhi, (Wiley Eastern Limited. 1985)

Kaajal Nathwani, The Jimmy Savile case and what should have been done, Harlow Star: Employment law corner, http://www.harlowstar.co.uk/Business/Employment-law-corner/The-Jimmy-Savile-case-and-what-should-have-been-done-20112012.htm

Lindsey German, Jimmy Savile: A Rasputin for our times, CounterFire: Analysis, http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/analysis/16110-jimmy-savile-a-rasputin-for-our-times- (2012)

Barkoff, Indemnification Provisions in Franchise Agreements: Unanticipated Liabilityfor the Franchisee, (N.Y. L.J., 2003)
Martin Mendelsohn, The Guide To Franchising 1 (6th ed. 1999)

Paul H. Rubin, The Theory ofthe Firm and the Structure of the Franchise Contract, 211. LAW & ECON. 223, 224, 228 (1978)

Peter M. Birkeland, Franchising Dreams 1 (2002).

1. Zimmerman, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)

2. Baty, Vicarious Liability: A Short History of the Liability of Employees, Principals, Partners, Associations and Trade-Union Members, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1916).

Thomas Atkins Street, The Foundations of Legal Liability: A Presentation Of The Theory and Development of the Common Law, vol. 2 (Northport: Edward Thompson, 1906)

William B. Cherkasky, Introduction to Franchising and the International Franchise Association, in THE Franchising Handbook 1, 1 (Andrew 1. Sherman ed., 1993)

[1] Kaajal Nathwani, The Jimmy Savile case and what should have been done, Harlow Star: Employment law corner, http://www.harlowstar.co.uk/Business/Employment-law-corner/The-Jimmy-Savile-case-and-what-should-have-been-done-20112012.htm

[2] Obstacles to Victims’ Cooperation with the Criminal Prosecution of Their Abusers: The Role of Social Support” (Violence and Victims, vol. 14, no. 4, Winter 1999) and JoAnn Miller in “An Arresting Experiment: Domestic Violence Victim Experiences and Perceptions” (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 18, no. 7, July 2003).

[3] Michael R. Flynn, Note, The Law of Franchisor Vicarious Liability: A Critique, COLUM. Bus. L. REv. 89, 89 (1993).

[4] M. Barkoff, Indemnification Provisions in Franchise Agreements: Unanticipated Liabilityfor the Franchisee, (N.Y. L.J., 2003)

[5] Paul H. Rubin, The Theory ofthe Firm and the Structure ofthe Franchise Contract, 211. LAW & ECON. 223, 224, 228 (1978)

[6] Gary T. Schwartz, The Hidden and Fundamental Issue of Employer Vicarious Liability, 69 S. CAL. L. REv. 1739, 1740 (1996)

[7] B.S. Markesinis et al., Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003)

[8] Gary T. Schwartz, “The Hidden and Fundamental Issue of Employer Vicarious Liability” (1996)

[9] Justice Keith Mason, “Fault, Causation And Responsibility: Is Tort Law Just an Instrument of Corrective Justice?” (2000)

[10] Peter M. Birkeland, Franchising Dreams 1 (2002).

[11] Martin Mendelsohn, The Guide To Franchising 1 (6th ed. 1999)

[12] William B. Cherkasky, Introduction to Franchising and the International Franchise Association, in THE FRANCHISING HANDBOOK 1, 1 (Andrew 1. Sherman ed., 1993)

[13] R. Zimmerman, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997)

[14] T. Baty, Vicarious Liability: A Short History of the Liability of Employees, Principals, Partners, Associations and Trade-Union Members, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1916).

[15] Thomas Atkins Street, The Foundations of Legal Liability: A Presentation Of The Theory and Development of the Common Law, vol. 2 (Northport: Edward Thompson, 1906)

[16] Obstacles to Victims’ Cooperation with the Criminal Prosecution of Their Abusers: The Role of Social Support” (Violence and Victims, vol. 14, no. 4, Winter 1999) and JoAnn Miller in “An Arresting Experiment: Domestic Violence Victim Experiences and Perceptions” (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 18, no. 7, July 2003).

[17] Michael R. Flynn, Note, The Law ofFranchisor Vicarious Liability: A Critique, COLUM. Bus. L. REv. 89, 89 (1993).

[18] Kumar, Ranjit, Research Methodology-A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, (2nd.ed), Singapore, (Pearson Education, 2005)

[19] Kothari, C.R., Research Methodology-Methods and Techniques, New Delhi, (Wiley Eastern Limited. 1985)

[20] Dawson, Catherine, Practical Research Methods, New Delhi, (UBS Publishers’ Distributors, 2002)

[21] Greene, J. ‘Mixed method evaluation: a way of democratically engaging with difference’, Evaluation Journal of Australasia 2, 2: 23-29 (2002)

[22] Fetterman, D. Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: the silent scientific revolution, New York, (Praeger, 1988)

[23] Johnson, R. and Onwuegbuzie, A., ‘mixed methods research: a research paradigm, whose time has come, Educational Researcher 33, 7: 14-26 (2004)

[24] Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. ‘Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies?’ in D. Fetterman (ed.) Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: the silent scientific revolution, (New York, Praeger, 1988) (pp. 89-115)

[25] Josh Halliday, Jimmy Savile victims: case studies, The Guardian: Media, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jan/11/jimmy-savile-report-case-studies

[26] Lindsey German, Jimmy Savile: A Rasputin for our times, CounterFire: Analysis, http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/analysis/16110-jimmy-savile-a-rasputin-for-our-times- (2012)

[27] Alex Stevenson, Analysis: How did Jimmy Savile escape justice?, politics.co.uk., http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/01/11/analysis-how-did-jimmy-savile-escape-justice (2013)

[28] Alex Stevenson, Analysis: How did Jimmy Savile escape justice?, politics.co.uk., http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/01/11/analysis-how-did-jimmy-savile-escape-justice (2013)

[29] Kaajal Nathwani, The Jimmy Savile case and what should have been done, Harlow Star: Employment law corner, http://www.harlowstar.co.uk/Business/Employment-law-corner/The-Jimmy-Savile-case-and-what-should-have-been-done-20112012.htm

[30] Finlo Rohrer, Jimmy Savile: Erasing the memory, BBC News Magazine, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20165466 (2012)

[31] Finlo Rohrer, Jimmy Savile: Erasing the memory, BBC News Magazine, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20165466 (2012)

[32] Josh Halliday, Jimmy Savile victims: case studies, The Guardian: Media, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jan/11/jimmy-savile-report-case-studies

[33] See Trotman v North Yorkshire County Council (1999)

Let the best UK Essay Writing
Service help you!