Evaluation vicarious liability

Question 1

Is vicarious liability a fair on employers

Answer 1

1- Vicarious liability is a fair area of law specifically on employers because it makes an employer liable for the torts committed by the tortfeasors which enables employers to maintain high standards and deter poor behaviour, this is because an employer will be aware of the consequences if they are lazy and encourage unsafe practices, this can be seen in the recent uber case of 2021 which indicated that employers and big company’s will be liable for the unsafe standards of there employees;.. this can be reinforced in the case of london ominbus

Question 2

Give an argument that suggests that vicarious liability is not fair on employers .

Answer 2

Vicarious liability is not fair on employers because it makes employers liable for torts committed in an forbidden manner for example the case of limpus where the law goes beyond the basic fault principle

Question 3

Give some strengths of the law on vicarious liability.

Answer 3

1. Ensures high standards are maintained.- Because vicarious liability puts so much strain on employers it ensures that they maintain high standards in the workplace and that training is updated, This then prevents any accidents or injustices because the employer is taking a greater responsibility in preventing torts such as negligence from occurring. This is evident in the decision made in the case of Lister Lister v Hersley Hall
2. Better compensation- Employers are more likely to have insurance which deals with these type of things, this makes it much easier for the claimant to receive better compensation and justice. As the aim of civil law is to compensate, rather than punish, this is an important aspect. Employers will usually be in a better financial position to pay any award of damages made, especially if the claim is for a death, as in Hilton v Thomas Burton.
3. is rare for an employer to be held responsible for the crimes of his/her employees however, the crimes committed by the employee in Lister v Hesley Hall were so serious that is was only right that the employer should be responsible to compensate the victims. The court decided if it can be established there is a “closeness of connection between the employment and the unlawful act” then they can be held vicariously liable.

Question 4

Give some weaknesses of the law on vicarious liability

Answer 4

• Too harsh on employers- This is because it makes employers liable for the torts committed by another. This suggests that vicarious liability creates injustice’s against employers. This is evident when employers can be liable for the actions done by employees in a forbidden manner such as in the case of … Just because the employee is acting in the scope of employment should not mean that the employer should take responsibility for their actions.
• Too many tests- this makes the law on vicarious liability much more complicated and complex. This is evident in the tests which aim to establish if the employee is employed or not ie the economic reality test established in the case of echo, express v tanton and in the case of Ready mixed concreate. . Critics have argued that there should be one test only and that this would ensure employers know exactly the extent of potential liability.
• Many call for Parliament to take action in the form of statutory reform. As with most other torts, the law of vicarious liability is laid down in common law. This in itself can cause injustice particularly regarding the complex laws on what makes someone an employee and the meaning of ‘course of employment. Indeed, many would see little difference between someone acting against orders such as bus drivers racing in Limpus v London General, when the employer was liable and someone giving an unauthorised life in Twine v Beans Express when the employers was not liable. A statute would clearly lay out the extent of an employers liability, potentially simplifying the law and prevent inconsistencies and uncertainty.

Question 4

Summarise the reforms of vicarious liability.

Answer 4

• Many call for Parliament to take action in the form of statutory reform. As with most other torts, the law of vicarious liability is laid down in common law. This in itself can cause injustice particularly regarding the complex laws on what makes someone an employee and the meaning of ‘course of employment. A statute would clearly lay out the extent of an employers liability, potentially simplifying the law and prevent inconsistencies and uncertainty.
• To introduce a state-run compensation scheme that all employers pay into. However, this also could create problems. For example, it could lead to careless and irresponsible employers and mean that retaining reputation and personal morality would be the only incentive to ensure safe working practices.