vicarious liability

Question 1

test

Answer 1

1. D2 has committed a delict against P
2. D2 and D1 have a relationship akin to employment
3. D2’s act is closely connectedd to that relationship so that it is fair to hold D1 liable

Question 2

akin to employment

Answer 2

payment
integration
control over the work
work done for benefit
power to appoint/terminate
hierarchy or organisational structure

Question 3

Grubb v Shannon 2018

Answer 3

• Beautician
• person who rents a seat in salon touched brow dye and lost her brows
• salon owner said she wasnt an employee
• she wore her businesses clothing representing her brand
• shows integration into business
  -could be held vicariously lialbe as this shows she was ‘akin to employment’

Question 4

MXX [2023]

Answer 4

• Work experience
• assaulted a pupil on work experience
• wouldve gone through the same checks an employee would’ve
• therefore was akin to employment

Question 5

various claiments v barclays [2020]

Answer 5

• independent contractors
• in order to get a job with Barclays, had to go to this doctor first
• doctor absused patients
• not akin to employemtn as Doctor was carrying out his own separate business from Barclays
• Barclays was a customer of the doctor so not akin to employment

Question 6

Mersey Docks

Answer 6

• crane driver transferred to help
• need to show a complete transfer of control
• this is a really high bar

Question 7

viasystem v thermal transfer

Answer 7

• both liable

Question 8

Neville v C&A Modes 1945

Answer 8

• express authorisation
• shop attendant accused pursuer of shop lifting, put hands on and said he was a theif
• sued for defamation
• maintaining order is part of the role of a shop lifter
• close connection with employment
• vicarious liability succeeded

Question 9

close connection test

Answer 9

Lister v Helsley Hall
summarised in BXB [2024

• was the wrongful conduct ‘so closely connected with the acts they were authorised to do”

starting point
1. what function or “fields of activities” have been entrusted by the employer to the employee (what was the nature of his/her job)
Mohamud v WM Morrison [2016]

Question 10

Iqbal v London Transport [1973]

Answer 10

• express authorisation
• bus conductor got in drivers seat and chrashed and hit another employee
• not within authorised role

Question 11

Rose v Plenty

Answer 11

• Milk men using kids to do their work
• expressly prohibited
• child got injured
• was helping milk men in furthering business so was liable

Question 12

Williams v Hemphill

Answer 12

• deviation
• boys brigade wanted bus driver to take them to stirling instead of glasgow to see girls
• bus driver asked employer, he said no
• took different route to stirling then to dollar and crashed injuring the boys
• the route they took could still have been going back to Glasgow so was considered to still be within the authorised role of employment
• deviation is only if the conduct results from a “frolic of the employees own”

Question 13

Matthis v Pollock [2003]

Answer 13

• personal prejudice by employee
• bouncer told to be harsh and mean to customers by employer
• was disrespected so left and got a knife from home and stabbed the customer
• was authorised by employer to be harsh to keep order so was deemed closely connected to course of empployment

Question 14

Vaidkuviene v JS Sainsburys

Answer 14

• no close connection
• shelf stocker murdered colleague in racist attack
• not closely connected as he had no supervisory role over the murdered