Barry Bennell: Men Lose Abuse Case - Vicarious Liability

hppb website blog images  (12)

We read with interest the announcement of the judgement in the case involving a group of claimants suing Manchester City Football Club.

This is a judgement that, at first glance, might seem to row back from previous judgements dealing with vicarious liability.  Yesterday’s judgement is one that revolves around its own facts. Rather than reduce the prospect of vicarious liability, the issue was not addressed in the sense that the football club did not have dealing with Bennell during the relevant period of abuse for these claimants.

This case does nothing to reduce the creep of vicarious liability as evidenced in the Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council case.







Read On

Aesthetic Insurance Video 7 ~ Complaint vs Claim

Key To Insurance - Complaint vs Claim, The Difference Explained  This is our seventh video in a...

Aesthetic Insurance Video 8 ~ How Claims Are Handled

Key To Insurance - How Claims Are Handled  This is our eighth video in a series of videos where we...

Aesthetic Insurance Video 9 ~ Giving Compensation Without Accepting Responsibility.

 Complaints and Claims are a fact of business life, however if handled appropriately they do not...