Definition of Vicarious Liability
Means of imposing liability on someone other than the tortfeasor
Who is the tortfeasor
They commit the tort and causes the harm
What must Defendant prove
- A relationship between defendant (D) and tortfeasor (T) which makes it fair for D to pay the compensation (eg. Employer-employee or ‘akin to employer-employee’)
- A close connection between this relationship and the wrongdoing.
Who will the employer only be liable for
The occupier will only be liable for torts committed by one of their employees, not by an independent contractor who was working for them
Employer will only be liable for torts committed by one of their employees, not independent contractors CASE
Barclays v Various Claimants - Barclays not liable as the doctor was not an employee but an indepdent contractor
Tests to decide which workers are employees and which are independent contractors
- Control Test
- Integration Test
- Multiple Test
Question in Control Test
How much control does the employer exercise over that other person’s work
Question in Integration Test
Is the persons work so fully integrated into the business that they should be considered an employee
Question(s) in Economic Reality Test/Multiple T est
- How is the tortfeasor paid (monthly, weekly, lump sum)
- Who pays the tax and National Insurance
- Who decides the working hours and is responsible for sick pay and holiday pay
- Who provides the tools and materials
When should a person be considered an employee in regards to the multiple test
- That person agrees to provide work and skill for the employer in return for payment
- That he or she agrees to be subject to the employers control
- That the other terms of the contract are consistent with the existence of a contract of service
Multiple Test Case
Ready Mixed Concrete:
Factors suggesting they were independent contractors:
- They had a duty to buy lorries on hire purchase
- Drivers had to maintain and insure the lorries
- Drivers were paid a fixed rate per mile
Situations akin to employment Cases
Cox Ministry of Justice - prisoners are in a relationship akin to employment to the Ministry of Justice when carrying out their duties
Catholic Child Welfare Society v Christian Brothers - Religious orders and its members were a rs akin to employment
Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council - Foster parents and a local authority were a rs akin to employment
What questions will court as in regards to akin to employment
Was harm wrong done by a person whose activities are an integral part of D’s business and for the benefit of the business?
Was the risk of the harm occurring caused by D assigning that activity to that person?
The employer is only liable if the tort is committed in the course of employment CASE QUOTE
Joel v Morison - the servant must be engaged on his master’s business, not on a frolic of his own
What is the employer liable for
- Wrong acts expressly authorised by the employer
- Authorised acts carried out in an unauthorised or wrongful
Wrong acts expressly authorised by the employer CASE
Poland v Parr - employee assaulted a boy suspected of stealing. Employer was liable
Employee carries out an authorised act in an unauthorised way (disobedient employees) COMPARISON CASE
Limpus v Omnibus: employees told not to race but they did and they caused an accident
VS
Beard v Omnibus: employer not liable as conductor was doing something outside the court of employment
Careless/Negligent Employee CASE
Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport - Tank Driver caused explosion through cigarette, employer was VL
Benefit to employer COMPARISON CASE
Rose v Plenty: Dairy was liable for the milkman’s negligent driving as the dairy still benefitted from work done
Twine v Beans Express: Employers not liable as driver was doing an unauthorised act where employers gained no benefit
What test is used to determine, if the employee commits a crime/intentional tort while at work, will that be seen as in the course of employment? or will it be a frolic of his own?
The close connection test
Close Connection Test Case
Lister v Helsey Hall: Warden convicted of SA but there was a sufficiently close connection between the acts of the employee and the employment
Case which followed the Close Connection Test
Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets: Morrisson were liable as Mohamud abused his position
Questions arising from Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets
CLOSE CONNECTION TEST QUESTIONS
- What is the nature of the job entrusted to the tortfeasor?
- Is there a sufficient connection between the position in which the tortfeasor is employed and their wrongful conduct to make it right for D to be held liable under the principle of social justice
