Vicarious liability

Question 1

Define Vicarious Liability

Answer 1

Vicarious liability is a means of imposing liability on someone other than the tortfeasor.

Question 2

Define a tortfeasor

Answer 2

The person who committed the tort.

Question 3

Establishing VL

Answer 3

1. Relationship between tortfeasor and defendant which makes it fair for D to pay the compensation. (EG: employer-employee/akin to employer)
2. Close connection between this relationship and the wrongdoing.

Question 4

Barclays v Various Claimants
Independent contractor

Answer 4

• Supreme Court held that the bank was not VL for the sexual assaults committed by an independent doctor during medical examinations of job applicants.
• The court ruled that because the doctor was self-employed and not under the bank’s control (paid by examination, had other clients, worked on own premises), the relationship was not sufficiently close to establish vicarious liability.

Question 5

Salmon Test

Answer 5

Employers are Vicariously Liable when:
1) The employee has committed an unintentional tort
2)The worker concerned has employee status
3)The employee committed the tort “during the course of employment”

Question 6

Control Test

Answer 6

• How much control does the employer exercise over that other persons work

Question 7

The integration test

Answer 7

• Is the persons work so fully integrated into the business that they should be considered an employee.

Question 8

Economic reality/multiple test

Answer 8

• Used to prove whether T is an employee.
  1. How T is paid
  2. Who pays tac and NIC
  3. Who decides working hours and is responsible for sick/holiday pay
  4. Who provides tools and materials
  5. Required to wear uniform

Question 9

Point of Law for the multiple test
A person should be considered an employee if:

Answer 9

1. That person agrees to provide work//skill for the employer in return for payment.
2. Agrees (express or implied) to be subject to the employers control.
3. The other terms of the contract are consistent with the existence of a contract of service (employment contract)

Question 10

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions
Economic reality test

Answer 10

• Lorry driver hired, he delivered concrete using a truck he owned himself, which he bought on hire purchase from the company. He wore the company uniform and had to follow a delivery schedule, but he paid for the truck’s maintenance, fuel, and insurance, and had the freedom to accept or reject jobs.
• The court ruled he was an independent contractor, not an employee, as he took on financial risk, had control over his work, and the overall arrangement was more consistent with self-employment than a contract of service

Question 11

Akin to employment two questions

Answer 11

1. Was harm wrongfully done by a person whose activities are an integral part of D’s business and for the benefit of the business?
2. Was the risk of the harm occurring caused by d’s assigning that activity to that person?

Question 12

Cox v Ministry of Justice
‘Akin to employment’

Answer 12

• Catering manager in a prison was injured by a prisoner working in the kitchen who accidentally dropped a heavy bag on her.
• Help Prison VL, even though the prisoner was not an employee, because he 1. was carrying out activities integral to the prison’s operation 2. by assigning the tasks to prisoners, the prison service created a risk of negligence.

Question 13

Course of Employment

Answer 13

• Amp only liable if the trot is committed in the course of employment
• Joel v Morison : the servant must be engaged on his masters business, not on a frolic of his own

Question 14

Poland v Parr
Authorised act in an unauthorised way

Answer 14

• Shopkeepers employee saw young boy allegedly stealing from shop’s delivery cart, then hit boy causing him to fall and suffer injuries.
• Employer VL became employee acted in course of employment to protect the employers goods.

Question 15

Limpus v London General Omnibus Co
Disobedient employee

Answer 15

• Bus driver caused an accident while racing and blocking rival bus.
• VL as he was still acting within the scope of his employment (job of driving the bus), even though he disobeyed orders.

Question 16

Beard v London General Omnibus Co
Disobedient employee

Answer 16

• Bus conductor who normally collected fares drove the bus without permission and caused harm.
• Not VL as he was acting outside the scope of his employment (driving not a part of his duties).

Question 17

Century Insurance Co v Northern Ireland Transport Board
Negligent/careless employee

Answer 17

• Employee caused an explosion by carelessly lighting a cigarette while delivering petrol,
• VL as the negligent act occurred during the course of his employment.

Question 18

Rose v Plenty
Employer benefits even when disobedient

Answer 18

• Milkman injured a boy helping him on his rounds,
• VL as the boy was assisting in the employee’s authorised work, even though the method was unauthorised, amp benefits.

Question 19

Twine v Beans Express
Employer doesn’t benefit and disobedient

Answer 19

• Employee gave an unauthorised lift to a hitchhiker who was later killed due to the negligent driving.
• Not VL as the act was expressly forbidden and brought no benefit to the employer.

Question 20

Hilton v Thomas Burton
Frolic of their own

Answer 20

• Employee who took an unauthorised break from work and caused a crash.
• Not VL as the employee on unauthorised frolic of own and not acting in scope of unemployment.

Question 21

Lister v Helsey Hall
Close connection test

Answer 21

• Warden at boarding school for children w emotionally difficulties sexually abused students.
• Close connection due to : job involving caring for and supervising children, abused happened within scope of duties
• VL as sufficiently close connection between acts of the employee and employment .

Question 22

Mattis v Pollock
Close connection

Answer 22

• Bouncer, employed at a nightclub, seriously injured a customer after an altercation.
• Close connection- his job included using force and intimidation to maintain order.
• VL as the attack was closely related to the employee’s job role and occurred during his working hours.

Question 23

Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarket
Close connection reformulated

Answer 23

• Customer asked employee at petrol station for assistance, but the employee responded with racial abuse and a violent physical assault, even following the customer to his car to continue the attack. The Supreme Court held that the employer was vicariously liable, as the employee’s actions were closely connected to his job, which involved dealing with customers, and the assault occurred during a sequence of events within the scope of employment.

Question 24

Close connection approved by SC

Answer 24

1. What is the nature of the job entrusted to the Tortfeasor
2. Is there sufficient connection between the position in which the tortfeasor is employed and their wrong doing to make it right for D to be held liable under the principle of social justice?

Question 25

N v Chief Constable of West Merseyside

Answer 25

- Police officer, while off duty and in plain clothes, used his position to lure a vulnerable woman from a nightclub and then sexually assaulted her at his home. - The Court of Appeal held that the police were not vicariously liable, as there was no close connection between the assault and the officer’s employment duties, and he was acting entirely for personal reasons outside the scope of his job.

Question 26

Morisons v Various Claimants

Answer 26

- Morrisons employee, motivated by personal revenge, leaked the personal data of around 100,000 colleagues online after copying it while performing a work task. - The Supreme Court held that Morrisons was not vicariously liable, as the employee’s actions were done for personal reasons and were not closely connected to his employment, even though he had access to the data through his job.