Chapter 24 Vicarious liability

Question 1

What is vicarious liability?

Answer 1

A way of imposing liability for a tort onto someone who did not commit the tort

It allows an injured claimant to sue both the employee and the employer.

Question 2

According to the Salmond test, when are employers vicariously liable?

Answer 2

• An employee commits an unintentional tort
• The tortfeasor is an employee
• The tort occurs in the course of employment

This test helps determine employer liability in tort cases.

Question 3

Who are the parties involved in vicarious liability?

Answer 3

• The tortfeasor
• The claimant
• The defendant

The tortfeasor is usually the employee, the claimant is the victim, and the defendant is usually the employer.

Question 4

What is the difference between an employee and an independent contractor?

Answer 4

An employee works under a contract of service; an independent contractor works under a contract for services

Employers can be vicariously liable for employees but not for independent contractors.

Question 5

What are the traditional tests of employment status?

Answer 5

• Control test
• Integration or organisation test
• Economic reality or multiple test

These tests help determine whether a worker is an employee or self-employed.

Question 6

What does the control test assess?

Answer 6

• Power to select the employee
• Right to control the method of working
• Right to suspend and dismiss
• Payment of wages

This test shows whether the employer has control over the employee.

Question 7

In Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffiths, what was determined about liability?

Answer 7

The permanent employer is presumed liable unless proven otherwise

This case involved a crane driver hired out to stevedores.

Question 8

What does the integration or organisation test state?

Answer 8

A worker is an employee if their work is fully integrated into the business

Accessory work does not qualify for employee status.

Question 9

What are the three conditions established in Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions for an employment relationship?

Answer 9

• Employee agrees to provide work for a wage
• Work is subject to employer control
• Contract considerations indicate an employment relationship

This case established the economic reality test.

Question 10

True or false: An employer is liable for an employee’s actions if the employee is acting against orders.

Answer 10

TRUE

Employers can be liable even if the employee acts against specific instructions while performing their job.

Question 11

In Hilton v Thomas Burton, why was the employer not vicariously liable?

Answer 11

The employees were on an unauthorized ‘frolic’ of their own

They were not acting in the course of their employment.

Question 12

What is the significance of the case Twine v Bean’s Express?

Answer 12

The employer was not liable as the driver acted outside the scope of employment

The driver was forbidden to give lifts, and the employer gained no benefit from the act.

Question 13

What happens if an employee commits a negligent act while performing their job?

Answer 13

The employer can be held vicariously liable

This was illustrated in the case of Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board.

Question 14

What is the recent approach to vicarious liability regarding non-traditional working relationships?

Answer 14

The court asks about the relationship between the employer and employee

This approach was initiated in the case of Lister v Hesley Hall.

Question 15

Define vicarious liability.

Answer 15

Liability imposed onto someone who did not commit a tort, usually seen in an employee/employer relationship.

It holds employers responsible for the actions of their employees under certain conditions.

Question 16

What is the Salmond test?

Answer 16

Establishes liability when:
* The employee commits an unintentional tort
* The tortfeasor is an employee
* The tort is committed in the course of employment

This test is used to determine if an employer is vicariously liable for an employee’s actions.

Question 17

What is the control test?

Answer 17

A method to determine if a person is an employee based on how much control the employer has over the worker.

This test assesses the degree of authority the employer has over the employee’s work.

Question 18

What is the integration test?

Answer 18

A test that examines how integrated a worker is into the business.

It helps to determine the nature of the employment relationship.

Question 19

What is the economic reality test?

Answer 19

Looks at all factors in the relationship to determine employment status.

This test considers the overall context of the working relationship.

Question 20

What does it mean if an employee is acting on a ‘frolic of their own’?

Answer 20

The employee is acting outside the scope of their employment, typically for personal reasons.

In such cases, the employer may not be liable for the employee’s actions.

Question 21

What are the two recent questions courts ask regarding vicarious liability?

Answer 21

• Was the working relationship akin to employment?
• Was there a close or sufficient connection between the tort and the employment?

These questions help assess liability in non-traditional working relationships.

Question 22

List the five criteria that can make it fair to find a relationship akin to employment.

Answer 22

• Employer has means to compensate the victim
• Tort committed as a result of employee’s activity on behalf of employer
• Employee’s activity is part of employer’s business
• Employer created the risk of the tort
• Employee was under the control of the employer

These criteria help establish vicarious liability in complex cases.

Question 23

In the case of Lister v Hesley Hall (2001), what was the outcome regarding employer liability?

Answer 23

The employer was liable due to a close connection between the employee’s job and the wrongful acts.

The case involved a warden who sexually assaulted children on school premises.

Question 24

What principle was established in Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants (FC) (2012)?

Answer 24

The relationship between the Institute and its members was akin to an employer/employee relationship, making the employer liable.

The case involved sexual abuse by teachers on children in their care.

Question 25

What did the **Cox v Ministry of Justice (2016)** case determine about employer liability?

Answer 25

The organization can be liable even if not carrying out commercial activity, as long as it furthers its own interests. ## Footnote This case involved an assault by a prisoner on a prison employee.

Question 26

In **Mohamud v Morrisons Supermarkets (2016)**, why were the employers found vicariously liable?

Answer 26

The employee acted within the field of his employment, as the assault occurred at the workplace and during working hours. ## Footnote This case involved an employee assaulting a customer at a petrol station.

Question 27

In **Barclays Bank v Various Claimants (2020)**, why was the bank not liable for the doctor's actions?

Answer 27

The doctor was an independent contractor, not an employee of the bank. ## Footnote The court determined that the bank was not responsible for the actions of independent contractors.