We use cookies to improve security, personalize the user experience,
enhance our marketing activities (including cooperating with our marketing partners) and for other
business use.
Click "here" to read our Cookie Policy.
By clicking "Accept" you agree to the use of cookies. Read less
Understanding the Doctrine of Identification: Legal Insights and Implications
Definition & Meaning
The doctrine of identification is a legal principle that originated in old English law. It asserts that a person who suffers injury while traveling cannot claim damages if the driver of the vehicle is found to be contributorily negligent. In this context, the injured passenger is considered "identified" with the negligent driver. This doctrine has since been rejected in modern law as it was deemed unsound, particularly highlighted in the case of The Bernina [1887], 13 App. Cas. 1 (1888).
Additionally, the doctrine of identification is used in corporate law to determine how companies can be held liable for actions requiring intent. It effectively merges the actions of individuals within a corporation with the corporation itself, attributing responsibility to the corporate entity.
Table of content
Legal Use & context
The doctrine of identification is primarily relevant in the fields of tort law and corporate law. In tort law, it is used to assess liability in cases involving negligence, particularly in transportation-related incidents. In corporate law, it helps establish how a corporation can be held accountable for the actions of its employees or agents.
Users may encounter forms related to negligence claims or corporate liability that can be managed using legal templates from US Legal Forms, which are drafted by qualified attorneys.
Key legal elements
Real-world examples
Here are a couple of examples of abatement:
Example 1: A passenger in a car is injured in an accident caused by the driver speeding. If it is determined that the passenger was aware of the speeding and did not alert the driver, they may be unable to claim damages due to their contributory negligence (hypothetical example).
Example 2: A corporation is sued for fraud committed by an employee. Under the doctrine of identification, the corporation may be held liable for the employee's actions if those actions were within the scope of their employment.
State-by-state differences
Examples of state differences (not exhaustive):
State
Doctrine Application
California
Recognizes the doctrine but has specific rules regarding contributory negligence.
New York
Utilizes a comparative negligence system that may affect the application of the doctrine.
This is not a complete list. State laws vary, and users should consult local rules for specific guidance.
Comparison with related terms
Term
Definition
Difference
Vicarious liability
Legal responsibility of an employer for the negligent actions of an employee.
Focuses on employer-employee relationships rather than passenger-driver dynamics.
Contributory negligence
A legal concept where the injured party's own negligence contributed to their injury.
Contributory negligence is a broader concept that can apply outside of the identification doctrine.
Common misunderstandings
What to do if this term applies to you
If you believe the doctrine of identification applies to your situation, consider the following steps:
Gather evidence related to the incident, including witness statements and police reports.
Consult with a legal professional to understand your rights and options.
Explore US Legal Forms for templates that may assist you in filing a claim or response.
For complex matters, seeking professional legal help is advisable.
Find the legal form that fits your case
Browse our library of 85,000+ state-specific legal templates.