Vicarious liability

Question 1

Vicarious liability

Answer 1

When a person or organisation is legally
responsible for a tort they did not commit
due to their relationship with the tortfeasor

Question 2

tortfeasor

Answer 2

the person who actually commits a
tort

Question 3

defendant vicariously liable

Answer 3

the person legally responsible for
the tortfeasor’s actions

Question 4

Ready Mixed Concrete v Min of Pensions

Answer 4

-The worker must agree to provide work in return for a regular wage

-The worker accepts that he will be under the control of the company

-All other contract terms are consistent with the worker being regarded as an employee

Question 5

Examples of other contract terms to be taken into account

Answer 5

Description of role, Payment of tax and National Insurance, Ownership of tools, Flexibility of worker to dictate hours and working
for others

Question 6

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and
Griffiths Ltd (lending employee to another employer for a period of time)

Answer 6

There is a presumption that the permanent employer will remain vicariously liable unless the contrary can be proved.

Question 7

Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd

Answer 7

Mersey Docks presumption doesnt apply

Question 8

Barclay’s Bank v Various

Answer 8

We must look at all the details of the relationship.

Where it is clear someone is carrying out their own business, they
are an independent contractor.

Where this is not clear, the criteria from Cox can be used to decide
if it is fair, just and reasonable to make the defendant liable.

Question 9

Cox v Ministry of Justice

Answer 9

Even relationships without formal contracts of employment may
lead to VL if a two part test is passed;

1) The harm is done by T who is carrying out the activities as an integral
part of D’s business rather than for the benefit of someone else

AND

2) The risk of harm was created by the defendant giving the individual
those activities.

Question 10

Course of employment

Answer 10

Where the wrongful act was authorised by the employer or where the wrongful act was unauthorised but still closely connected to the
authorised work

Question 11

Morrisons v Various

Answer 11

shows we should consider what T was employed to do, what they did in the case, and if these things had a close enough connection that it was fair to say T was acting in the ordinary course of employment, or if it was instead a personal
action.

Question 12

Mohamud v Morrisons Supermarket

Answer 12

Morrisons v Various works

Question 13

N v Chief Constable for Merseyside

Answer 13

Morrisons v Various does not work (motivation was purely personal)

Question 14

Twine v Beans Express

Answer 14

the unauthorised act was a frolic of his
own as T was not doing his job when giving the lift,

Question 15

Rose v Plenty

Answer 15

when the job is still being done and the company benefits from T’s work

Question 16

Civil Liability(Contribution) Act 1978.

Answer 16

D can claim back damages from T