vicarious liability

Question 1

Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust (2006)

Answer 1

Facts: Employee harassed colleague in course of work — liable.
Principle: Employer vicariously liable for statutory torts committed in employment.

Question 2

Cox v Ministry of Justice (2016)

Answer 2

Facts: Prisoner working in prison kitchen injured staff — liable.
Principle: Relationship akin to employment; Lord Reed applied enterprise and risk justifications.

Question 3

Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society (2012)

Answer 3

Facts: Brothers abused children in residential school — liable.
Principle: VL for relationships akin to employment; Lord Phillips’ justifications.

Question 4

JGE v Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust (2012)

Answer 4

Facts: Priest abused child; not employee — liable.
Principle: Court recognised ‘akin to employment’ relationship.

Question 5

Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council (2018)

Answer 5

Facts: Foster carers abused child in care — liable.
Principle: Foster carers integral to council’s function; VL imposed.

Question 6

Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc (2020)

Answer 6

Facts: Doctor abused claimants during exams — no VL.
Principle: Tortfeasor in business on own account.

Question 7

Ferguson v Dawson (1976)

Answer 7

Facts: Worker labelled subcontractor injured colleague — employee.
Principle: Labels not decisive; substance of relationship matters.

Question 8

Collins v Hertfordshire CC

Answer 8

Facts: Employment status disputed — employee.
Principle: Control test relevant though limited for skilled work.

Question 9

Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951)

Answer 9

Facts: Hospital surgeon negligent — employee.
Principle: Organisation test; part of employer’s business.

Question 10

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions (1968)

Answer 10

Facts: Owner-driver status disputed — independent contractor.
Principle: Economic reality test: control, integration, risk.

Question 11

Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board (1942)

Answer 11

Facts: Driver lit cigarette causing explosion — liable.
Principle: Improper mode of authorised act still in course of employment.

Question 12

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001)

Answer 12

Facts: Warden sexually abused children — liable.
Principle: Sufficient connection; tort inextricably linked to duties.

Question 13

Kay v ITW Ltd

Answer 13

Facts: Driver used others’ vehicles to do job — liable.
Principle: Acts incidental to employment within course of duty.

Question 14

Beard v London General Omnibus Co (1900)

Answer 14

Facts: Conductor drove bus and injured pedestrian — no VL.
Principle: Act wholly outside authorised duties.

Question 15

Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862)

Answer 15

Facts: Driver raced despite prohibition — liable.
Principle: Prohibited act still mode of authorised work.

Question 16

Storey v Ashton (1869)

Answer 16

Facts: Employee deviated for personal errand — no VL.
Principle: Frolic of own breaks course of employment.

Question 17

Rose v Plenty (1976)

Answer 17

Facts: Milkman gave lift to helper — liable.
Principle: Unauthorised act benefiting employer may attract VL.

Question 18

Twine v Beans Express Ltd (1946)

Answer 18

Facts: Lift to unauthorised passenger — no VL.
Principle: Act not furthering employer’s business.

Question 19

Keppel v Saad bin Ahmad (1960)

Answer 19

Facts: Employee assaulted customer — no VL.
Principle: Violent frolic unrelated to duties.

Question 20

Warren v Henlys Ltd (1948)

Answer 20

Facts: Petrol attendant assaulted customer — no VL.
Principle: Act motivated by personal hostility.

Question 21

Mattis v Pollock (2003)

Answer 21

Facts: Doorman stabbed patron after ejection — liable.
Principle: Violence closely connected to authorised role.

Question 22

Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd (2018)

Answer 22

Facts: Manager assaulted employee after work party — liable.
Principle: Authority and work context created sufficient connection.

Question 23

Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (2016)

Answer 23

Facts: Employee assaulted customer — liable.
Principle: Interaction part of job; seamless sequence.

Question 24

Bernard v Attorney General of Jamaica

Answer 24

Facts: Police shooting during duty — liable.
Principle: Tort inextricably interwoven with police functions.

Question 25

Attorney General of British Virgin Islands v Hartwell (2004)

Answer 25

Facts: Off-duty officer shot colleague — no VL. Principle: Act on frolic of own.

Question 26

Irving v Post Office (1987)

Answer 26

Facts: Racist abuse by sorter — no VL. Principle: Conduct unrelated to duties.

Question 27

Harrison v Michelin Tyre Co Ltd (1985)

Answer 27

Facts: Horseplay at work caused injury — liable. Principle: Improper manner of authorised activity.

Question 28

Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd (2022)

Answer 28

Facts: Injury from horseplay prank — no VL. Principle: No sufficient connection with duties.

Question 29

Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co (1912)

Answer 29

Facts: Clerk defrauded client — liable. Principle: Fraud committed in course of employment.

Question 30

Heasmans v Clarity Cleaning Co Ltd

Answer 30

Facts: Cleaner committed theft — no VL. Principle: Mere opportunity insufficient.

Question 31

Various Claimants v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (2020)

Answer 31

Facts: Employee leaked payroll data — no VL. Principle: Vindictive acts not connected to employment.

Question 32

Trustees of Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB (2023)

Answer 32

Facts: Elder raped claimant after social visit — no VL. Principle: Insufficient connection; abuse of friendship.

Question 33

TVZ v Manchester City Football Club Ltd (2022)

Answer 33

Facts: Coach abused youth player — no VL. Principle: Insufficient connection despite power imbalance.

Question 34

Blackpool Football Club Ltd v DSN (2021)

Answer 34

Facts: Scout abused boy — no VL. Principle: Tort not sufficiently connected to duties.