The primary source used in the research study consists of a case study, which is about the Vicarious Liability under a statutory duty. It purports that an employer can also be held vicariously liable for a statutory duty breach that has been caused by an employee. From the case study it is found out that the statutory duty breached differs to that of a common law duty, where the statutory duty come about by the operation of statute, and not by common law principles. The secondary source used in the research study consists of a law journal about vicarious liability. For the sake having credibility in the final finding of the research, a number of research terms had to be incorporated within the overall study. The idea of restricting the research only on the aspect of statutory duty was the main and applicable term over the research. The applicable research restriction (term) and easy research are the main research method applied, and have been found to be effective and efficient for the study because of their applicability (Smith, 2001).
Part Two: Analysis
AAA Auto Dealers is liable for John and #65533's negligence as in this case they are the employer, and can be held liable for the breach of a statutory duty even where the statutory duty is mainly owed by John and #65533 personally and individually. In this case, the vicarious liability is imposed on an employer, which is AAA Auto Dealers, both John and #65533 will be held jointly liable. This form of operation is strategically placed to allow the employer to claim a contribution from John and #65533 under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. It is also noted that in the context of an independent contractor, of which does not appear in this case, an employer is of high chances of being held vicariously liable where he or she has authorized or ratified the existing tort. The expansion of this vicarious liability has been found to implicate far-reaching facts about many employers in the future (Smith, 2001).