[PASSED] Respondeat Superior

[Astrolinium]

An older gentleman in a pressed suit enters the chamber carrying a briefcase. His receding gray hair is a stark contrast to the well-dyed black of Dr. Romero, and the eminently kind -- perhaps too kind -- expression on his face is a stark contrast to Dr. Romero's general aura of disdain. Unfortunately, this is not Dr. Romero's replacement, as Giovanni trails directly behind him.

Coughing slightly, Giovanni says, "Hey, Bell, er, Crawford, nice Latin in the title. Classy. One of our national languages back in Astrolinium is Latin, you know. Anyway, the man beside me is the eminent and honorable Roland Eliezer, Secretary of Legal Affairs for the Sublime Island Kingdom. As His Majesty understands I have, well, no experience with tort law, it was requested that he accompany me to this debate today so that I not, er, what were the words he used?"

Giovanni trails off, pretending to count on his fingers. Eliezer raises his eyebrows and says quite cheerily, "I believe the phrase used was, 'that you not make any more of a mockery of our nation on the international stage than you already do', if I recall quite correctly, though as you are quick to remind me at all times, Aelian is not my first language."

Giovanni nods. "Quite. Anyway, uh, Roland Elizer." He gestures as if to show off his companion.

Roland nods and sets down his briefcase on the Astrolinican desk. He pops it open, pulls out a stack of papers, and shuffles through them for a moment.

"Ambassador... Bell, is it?" he calls out. "I think this a rather cheery little proposal, well in line with the standards of consumer protection that the Sublime Island Kingdom holds dear to its collective and collectivist heart. I will say, I do share the concern of some of your and Dr. Romero's colleagues here regarding the category, though I bow to their superior knowledge of World Assembly policy if no more suitable category truly exists. As a point of punctuation -- though, I must note, English is not my first language either -- there is a stray apostrophe towards the end of clause three. Lastly, as a niggling little bit of petty, trifling criticism, I hardly think the phraseology 'Noting an ominous silence surrounding the topic of tort reform' suitable to international law, and find it hard to accept that a firm with the clear and manifest credibility of Herbet, Crawford, and Entschuldigung, L.L.P. would allow it to be introduced willy-nilly into an otherwise very suitable draft, particularly one with such a pleasant Latinate title."

Roland beams sunnily at Bell and Crawford.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Crawford should damn well know better, since I am the ambassador here, and he is merely the advisor!"

Fairburn: I can relate.

[Separatist Peoples]

I hardly think the phraseology 'Noting an ominous silence surrounding the topic of tort reform' suitable to international law, and find it hard to accept that a firm with the clear and manifest credibility of Herbet, Crawford, and Entschuldigung, L.L.P. would allow it to be introduced willy-nilly into an otherwise very suitable draft, particularly one with such a pleasant Latinate title."

Bell signals vigorously in the negative as Crawford's eyes widen. With a belied deftness, the shockingly grey attorney snatched a copy of the resolution from the podium and whispered fiercely into Bell's ear.

"Damn it, Crawford, its just a bit of a joke, lay off..."

Whispering.

"No, I realize it's a law, but-"

Whispers.

"Odin's Beard, man, there's a smoothie recipe in-"

More whispers.

"No, you can't repeal a repeal! You'll just have to deal with it!"

Bell snatches back the now crumpled draft and somewhat lovingly flattens its edges. "You people have no sense of humor at all."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Odin's Beard, man, there's a smoothie recipe in-"

More whispers.

"No, you can't repeal a repeal! You'll just have to deal with it!"

OOC
lol

[Astrolinium]

Bell snatches back the now crumpled draft and somewhat lovingly flattens its edges. "You people have no sense of humor at all."

Dr. Romero sighs forlornly in the general direction of Roland Eliezer. "No, my colleague tragically had to have his removed at birth due to complications with paraphimosis. If it is any consolation, I rather like the ominous silence, or, rather, the addressing thereof, and I am the one who actually does the voting here, not Mr. Eliezer."

Roland Eliezer rolls his eyes. "Yes, yes, Dr. Romero, we all know your propensity for antics. There is a reason, you know, why the King made sure you exist in a completely different spacetime reality from the Sublime Island Kingdom for most of the year by sending you here."

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

The Amabassador from The United Royal Isles of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:

a. Was acting in the scope of employment;
b. Existed in an employer-employee relationship with the enjoined business; and
c. Was the proximate cause of the damage to the plaintiff.

The only technical faul we can find within the resolution is the order of the 3 elements. We feel that establishing causal order within these matters is important to insuring proper application. As such, we find that it is important that the tortfeasor being the proximate cause is listed above the other criteria. Our recommendation is that these items be relisted as (c,b,a).
We also would recommend clarifying "in" to "within" for the purposes as it is a more limiting term. For an extreme example: "in" might also include actions taken in the bounds of company property, even though the employee was off-duty, as the scope of employment generally permits to an employee access to and use of the company property (OOC: based on an example from a real tort I've dealt with, based in part on this word choice).
We applaud the author in offering reserved language and clear purpose in this proposal and support their efforts to insure appropriate access to relief.

[Separatist Peoples]

The Amabassador from The United Royal Isles of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:

a. Was acting in the scope of employment;
b. Existed in an employer-employee relationship with the enjoined business; and
c. Was the proximate cause of the damage to the plaintiff.

The only technical faul we can find within the resolution is the order of the 3 elements. We feel that establishing causal order within these matters is important to insuring proper application. As such, we find that it is important that the tortfeasor being the proximate cause is listed above the other criteria. Our recommendation is that these items be relisted as (c,b,a).
We also would recommend clarifying "in" to "within" for the purposes as it is a more limiting term. For an extreme example: "in" might also include actions taken in the bounds of company property, even though the employee was off-duty, as the scope of employment generally permits to an employee access to and use of the company property (OOC: based on an example from a real tort I've dealt with, based in part on this word choice).
We applaud the author in offering reserved language and clear purpose in this proposal and support their efforts to insure appropriate access to relief.

"I have to dispute the logical order of this being C, B, A. Necessarily, for this to apply, the employee must be in an employer-employee relationship prior to the accident, and so those factors would necessarily have to be satisfied before being the proximate cause of the incident. It could be argued that the order should be B, A, C, since the relationship is a necessary factor of acting in the scope of employment, and I'll make that adjustment.

"I'm also not sure about the utility of "within" versus "in", considering it refers specifically to "scope: in that clause. Moreover, I'm not entirely sure accidents that occur on an employer's property by an off-duty employee should necessarily be excluded. If a nation wishes to extend the responsibility of an employer to the absolute immediacy or termination of their commute, i.e., when they are about to leave or have just arrived, I think that is fair. Certainly, nations that think this is an unreasonable burden on employers are likely to take a more limiting interpretation. In any case, it serves the purpose of allowing flexibility between nations while serving the ultimate goal."

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

The Amabassador from The United Royal Isles of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:

"I have to dispute the logical order of this being C, B, A. Necessarily, for this to apply, the employee must be in an employer-employee relationship prior to the accident, and so those factors would necessarily have to be satisfied before being the proximate cause of the incident. It could be argued that the order should be B, A, C, since the relationship is a necessary factor of acting in the scope of employment, and I'll make that adjustment.

"I'm also not sure about the utility of "within" versus "in", considering it refers specifically to "scope: in that clause. Moreover, I'm not entirely sure accidents that occur on an employer's property by an off-duty employee should necessarily be excluded. If a nation wishes to extend the responsibility of an employer to the absolute immediacy or termination of their commute, i.e., when they are about to leave or have just arrived, I think that is fair. Certainly, nations that think this is an unreasonable burden on employers are likely to take a more limiting interpretation. In any case, it serves the purpose of allowing flexibility between nations while serving the ultimate goal."

Our argument for the prioritzation of C, is that "damage" as it is used in this context is a necessary pre-requisite condition for a tort to exist, for it to be mentioned here then it is further emphasis of this fact. As any such actions, or negligence which would lead to damage, must be considered first in establishing the tort, before any further parties can be enjoined. However,( B, A, C) stylistically does meet our approval in reading the resolution. As such we thank the delegate for his time in considering these points.
As for the distinction between 'in' and 'within' we only felt this point was important when considering the remainder of the reserved language and wanted to make aware the broader implications. We find ourselves in agreement of the points of fact regarding this matter as stated.

[Separatist Peoples]

Our argument for the prioritzation of C, is that "damage" as it is used in this context is a necessary pre-requisite condition for a tort to exist, for it to be mentioned here then it is further emphasis of this fact. As any such actions, or negligence which would lead to damage, must be considered first in establishing the tort, before any further parties can be enjoined.

"The tort would exist with or without the respondeat superior joinder. It would be a negligence claim of some kind against the employee. Respondeat superior just seeks to move the liability from one defendant to another. I can see why your Excellency would argue that the tort is necessary, since it ultimately is, but by condensing the issue of respondeat superior to the assessment of a tort that has already occurred, we narrow the issue to the employee's connections, rather than the tort itself. I believe those are just two ways of getting to the same point, but the inclusion of the proximate cause requirement is really to demonstrate to voters that this isn't an open invitation to holding business liable for any injury, as they would likely do otherwise. A true respondeat superior claim wouldn't have to deal with proximate cause at all, as it would be dispensed in the initial considerations of liability against the original tortfeasor."

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

The Amabassador from The United Royal Isles of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:

"The tort would exist with or without the respondeat superior joinder. It would be a negligence claim of some kind against the employee. Respondeat superior just seeks to move the liability from one defendant to another. I can see why your Excellency would argue that the tort is necessary, since it ultimately is, but by condensing the issue of respondeat superior to the assessment of a tort that has already occurred, we narrow the issue to the employee's connections, rather than the tort itself. I believe those are just two ways of getting to the same point, but the inclusion of the proximate cause requirement is really to demonstrate to voters that this isn't an open invitation to holding business liable for any injury, as they would likely do otherwise. A true respondeat superior claim wouldn't have to deal with proximate cause at all, as it would be dispensed in the initial considerations of liability against the original tortfeasor."

Ah, yes, I see here now how that would be the case, as the clause is not an establishing one, but in fact offering a further limit. As written however, it could be taken as either, and thus we change our recommendation on this clause.
We find that if it is to follow (a), which is now listed as (b), then it must reference the action above it. We feel that:"Said/Such/The [above] action was the proximate....", or something similar, would suffice to convey this intention.

OOC: this was fun debating causal order also 'above' can be omitted as superfluous, which is why I put it in braces

[Lanvonin]

The previously unseen Lanvoninian ambassador, Samuel L. Baker, stands, straightens his mustache, and begins to speak in an excessively booming voice.

"The People's Republic of Lanvonin strongly supports any measure to increase worker protections. However, we are concerned with the joint and several liability clause. Would this provision expose the worker to a risk of liability in this scenario in addition to the employer? This would seem manifestly unfair to us."'

Baker sits down, perhaps a bit too confident that his counsel explained joint and several liability to him clearly.

[Separatist Peoples]

The previously unseen Lanvoninian ambassador, Samuel L. Baker, stands, straightens his mustache, and begins to speak in an excessively booming voice.

"The People's Republic of Lanvonin strongly supports any measure to increase worker protections. However, we are concerned with the joint and several liability clause. Would this provision expose the worker to a risk of liability in this scenario in addition to the employer? This would seem manifestly unfair to us."'

Baker sits down, perhaps a bit too confident that his counsel explained joint and several liability to him clearly.

"Of course it would. The worker, in this case, was clearly negligent. They shouldn't go unpunished entirely unless they can prove they were negligent only as a result of their employer's actions, and even then I question how reasonable it is to let them off the hook when they violated the social standards of care in an action."

[Lanvonin]

The previously unseen Lanvoninian ambassador, Samuel L. Baker, stands, straightens his mustache, and begins to speak in an excessively booming voice.

"The People's Republic of Lanvonin strongly supports any measure to increase worker protections. However, we are concerned with the joint and several liability clause. Would this provision expose the worker to a risk of liability in this scenario in addition to the employer? This would seem manifestly unfair to us."'

Baker sits down, perhaps a bit too confident that his counsel explained joint and several liability to him clearly.

"Of course it would. The worker, in this case, was clearly negligent. They shouldn't go unpunished entirely unless they can prove they were negligent only as a result of their employer's actions, and even then I question how reasonable it is to let them off the hook when they violated the social standards of care in an action."

OOC: I definitely just misremembered that concept from my torts class. Carry on!

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Right, I think I get what this proposal does. I do have a couple of questions, however.

Firstly, what is proximate cause? I'm finding the concept rather difficult to grasp.

Secondly, what is the international utility of this reform?

OOC: You might want to put up an FAQ. Otherwise, you know that people are going to misinterpret this if and when it comes to vote.

[Separatist Peoples]

Neville: Right, I think I get what this proposal does. I do have a couple of questions, however.

Firstly, what is proximate cause? I'm finding the concept rather difficult to grasp.

Secondly, what is the international utility of this reform?

OOC: You might want to put up an FAQ. Otherwise, you know that people are going to misinterpret this if and when it comes to vote.

"Proximate cause, as distinct from factual cause, is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognized harm that the law holds to be the cause of the injury.

This is distinct from factual cause, which is just that the act caused the injury.

"For example, if Person A rear-ends person B, and Person B had fireworks in their trunk that were detonated, then person C, who was hit by shrapnel, Person D, who's window shattered from the sound, and Person E, who dropped their infant child in surprise at the noise, all had their injuries factually caused by A's negligence. However, the law will probably create a legal limit to how many of those victims can recover. Most systems will certainly allow B and C to recover from A. Some may allow D to recover. Almost none will allow E to recover.

"The utility is that employees have a much greater protection against being used as the fall guy for a business that expects unreasonably dangerous behavior as a condition for employment. Pizza Delivery guys won't be encouraged to speed to meet either a requirement for speedy delivery or incentives for speedy delivery if it creates an unreasonable breach of the standard of care all people have to refrain from unsafe activity. It also allows the victim, who was hit by Pizza Delivery's car, to recover from a source that can actually cover their expenses. You can only get so much from a pizza delivery boy, but probably far more from their employer.

"In doing so, the WA can expand the basic protections of individuals from business by incentivizing safe behavior without relying on restrictive regulation, and thus, the WA meets it's fundamental goals of protecting those who are not in a position to protect themselves."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: In that case, we are happy to support this proposal.

[Aclion]

OOC not a lawyer but internets tells me that a tortfeaser is a person who commits a tort, and a tort is a civil wrong in a common law system(and in some jurisdictions that use use other systems but borrow from common law) However it's not universal.

I'm worried that without a change in wording, a definition or a clarifying clause that some players which practice say; sharia law(which seems to be particularly nebulous on the topic) may bypass the resolution by claiming their nation does not have torts but use a different system for settling liability.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC not a lawyer but internets tells me that a tortfeaser is a person who commits a tort, and a tort is a civil wrong in a common law system(and in some jurisdictions that use use other systems but borrow from common law) However it's not universal.

OOC: I can't see how the term wouldn't translate to a non-common law system. And if there isn't a civil law system in a nation, this is wholly inapplicable to them, now isn't it?

I'm worried that without a change in wording, a definition or a clarifying clause that some players which practice say; sharia law(which seems to be particularly nebulous on the topic) may bypass the resolution by claiming their nation does not have torts but use a different system for settling liability.

OOC: Two approaches to this:
1. The claim transfers in their system as best it possibly can. So, instead of having a tort, you'd have a sharia violation that the employer is liable for under similar circumstances. Messy, but a possibility.

2. As noted previously, there wouldn't be any overlap at all. Certainly, it might be useful to establish a universal civil court system in all nations that allows issues to be settled in a comparable system to the
criminal process, but until that effort is taken, we'll have to live with the fact that some nations simply don't have a way of litigiously addressing noncriminal wrongs, but instead rely on arbitration, cultural enforcement, or even just utter anarchy.

Also, sorry for the huge delay. Civil Procedure and Contracts exams got in the way. I cried a bit during. I'm not proud, but I think it was justified.

[Bakhton]

"The 10th Federal Court, which often takes time out of its day to review drafted proposals, have offered positive opinions on this piece of legislation. Justice Jamaka wrote, 'The draft as written is important in legislating in a legal field not often covered by this august Assembly, that of tort reform. We wish to see the importance of this proposal to the international community stressed in order to justify it as international law. Perhaps, bring up how this would affect international labor organizations or global economics. If these further changes are made we would have no issue in providing positive council to the higher 11th, and Supreme Court, of Bakhton.' " Lara Qzu finishes reading the brief before taking sip of Diet Dr. Gov out of an absurdly large bendy straw.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

~Walking around the WA Headquarters in the afternoon enjoying the views outside the windows reflecting on debate this past week, Ambassador Everett realizes that it has been a while since he has checked on the status of "Respondeat Superior". Upon entering the hall he realizes that it has been mostly quiet.~

OOC;
Also, sorry for the huge delay. Civil Procedure and Contracts exams got in the way. I cried a bit during. I'm not proud, but I think it was justified.

OOC: I don't think those who can sit through every exam, without breaking down during atleast one, are completely human. I totally lost it for a couple of minutes during Estate Contracts & Theory exams this semester. Totally with you.

[Separatist Peoples]

~Walking around the WA Headquarters in the afternoon enjoying the views outside the windows reflecting on debate this past week, Ambassador Everett realizes that it has been a while since he has checked on the status of "Respondeat Superior". Upon entering the hall he realizes that it has been mostly quiet.~

OOC;
Also, sorry for the huge delay. Civil Procedure and Contracts exams got in the way. I cried a bit during. I'm not proud, but I think it was justified.

OOC: I don't think those who can sit through every exam, without breaking down during atleast one, are completely human. I totally lost it for a couple of minutes during Estate Contracts & Theory exams this semester. Totally with you.

Our Contracts professor taught us right out of the Second Restatements of Contracts, complete with memorization of the Restatement language. It was miserable.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: el bumpacabra.

Seriously contemplating submitting this soon. If you take offense, now is the time to whine.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: el bumpacabra.

Seriously contemplating submitting this soon. If you take offense, now is the time to whine.

This proposal clearly violates multiple rules! Time to file a thousand and one Legality Challenges^TM!

[Imperium Anglorum]

This proposal clearly violates multiple rules! Time to file a thousand and one Legality Challenges™!

It wouldn't be the GA without such bullshit!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: I remain convinced the category is inappropriate. The main thrust of grafs 1-2 is to guarantee plaintiff rights at law against private companies, which is the exact opposite of Advancement of Industry. The presence of the AoE "Tort Reform" within that category doesn't magically render all legislation regarding torts suddenly appropriate for Advancement of Industry. Unless you can show why this resolution is a more beneficial market intervention for private companies than the status quo in which nations may (say) prohibit all civil suits against large employers, or do nothing at all, this simply is not AoI.