Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffiths 1947
if worker and equipment are hired out there is a presumption the original employer is liable, if only worker is hired out the presumption is the hirer is liable
(hired crane driver negligently injured another worker)
Hawley v Luminar Leisure 2006
club employed bouncer so vicariously liable for actions
(bouncer provided by specialist suppliers assaulted nightclub customer)
Ready Mixed concrete v Minister of Pensions and NI 1968
three conditions required to show as employment relationship:
1- a relationship similar to employment
2- which was established by a close connection
3- it was fair and just to impose liability on the employer
(should the driver or the company be responsible for paying NI contributions?)
Limpus v London General 1862
employer liable to v, the driver was doing his job even against orders
(bus driver caused accident when racing, despite being instructed not to do so)
Rose v Plenty 1976
dairy vicariously liable, it was benefiting from the boys work
(diary instructed its milkmen not to use child helpers, boy injured while helping a milkman on his round)
Hilton v Thomas Burton Ltd 1961
employer’s not liable as the workers were on a ‘frolic’ of their own
( employees took unauthorised break and had an accident while driving the firms van killing one of them)
Twine v Bean’s Express 1946
employers not liable as the driver was doing an unauthorised act and the firm was gaining no benefit
(c’s husband was killed by negligent driving of worker who had been forbidden to give lifts)
Beard v London General Omnibus Co. 1900
employers not liable as conductor acted outside the course of his employment
(bus conductor drove bus negligently injuring the v)
Lister v Hesley Hall 2001
employers liable as there was a ‘close connection’ between his job and what he did
(warden sexually assaulted children with emotional difficulties at his school)
Christian brothers 2012
employers liable as:
relationship between employers and teachers ‘akin’ to employer/employee relationship and
abuse was connected to that relationship
(teachers sexually abused pupils at the school where they were employed)
Cox v MoJ 2016
not necessary for employer to be carrying out commercial activity, its enough to be carrying on activities in furtherance of its own interests to be liable
(prison employee assaulted by a prisoner)
Mohamud v Morrisons 2016
employee acted in the field of employment, making employers liable
(employee assaulted customer at petrol station)
Armes v Nottingham county council 2017
foster carers integral to employer’s ‘business activity’ to make them liable
(child abused by foster carers)
Barclays Bank 2020
bank not liable for actions of independent contractor
(doctor sexually assaulted prospective employees while carrying out medical exams on behalf of bank)
