How is the multiple test fairer than the older tests (control/integration) + Developed Point
It takes more factors into account and so is realistic as it recognises the complexity of modern working practices
DP - Many types of work are not specialised but these workers are still employees though not controlled by the employers in terms of being told how to do their job
How can the cox test be criticised
It has expanded VL to other types of organisations such as councils as seen in Armes v Nottinghamshire council. This can be criticised as it is a non business organisation which does not make a profit. Making them liable can cause the risk of running one of these org or cause them to shut down.
How is the Salmond Test fair on al parties including the tortfeasor
When the employer is liable for wrongful acts that they authorised, c will be compensated and D will be held liable as they are responsible for their employees. Tortfeasor was only following instructions given to them by their employer
How can the Salmond test be criticised
Employers are still liable for authorised acts carried out in an unauthorised way which can be seen as absurd as the employer has taken precautions to avoid incidents where liability will arise
What do employers still have control over in their business
Who they hire and who they fire
How can D being liable for negligent acts be unfair
It is very difficult for D to be in proximity to the tortfeasor and prevent acts when they are paying no attention to their surroundings as in Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport
D being liable for negligent acts can be fair in what way
Claimants will receive compensation from the compulsory public liability insurance the employer has when damage to property/harm to public is done
How can the close connection be seen in a negative light and why
It can be seen as vague and open to inconsistencies as there are many opposing judicial opinions
Mattis v Pollock - Connection was easy as TF was a bouncer which is a role closely related to the crime
BUT
Mohamnud v Morrisons - Less obvious as TF was a kiosk attendant
What did the case of Mohammud clarify but what did it still leave
It clarified the close connection test by relying on whether the employee was acting (even wrongly) in the course of their employer’s business.
It still left to judicial option as to when a close connection is close enough for it to be socially just to impose VL.
