What is vicarious liability?
Liability of an employer for the torts and crimes of their employees
Defined by Sir John Salmond in 1907 and developed through case law.
In the context of vicarious liability, who is the claimant?
C (name)
The claimant is the individual who has suffered harm.
In vicarious liability, who is the tortfeasor?
TF (name)
The tortfeasor is the employee who committed the tort or crime.
What are the two rules for establishing vicarious liability?
- The tortfeasor must be an employee or in a position akin to employment
- There must be a ‘close or sufficient connection’ between the wrongdoing and the employment
These rules ensure that claimants are compensated for their injuries.
What is the Salmond Approach in determining employment status?
The tortfeasor must have been an employee
This approach traditionally required the tortfeasor to meet specific criteria to be considered an employee.
What tests are used to determine if someone is an employee?
- Control test
- Integration test
- Economic reality test
These tests help courts assess the employment relationship.
What is the akin to employment test?
Used when there is doubt about the tortfeasor’s employment status
Considered in JGE v Portsmouth Catholic Trust.
List the five criteria that may establish a relationship ‘akin to employment’.
- Employer likely has means to compensate
- Employee under control of employer
- Employee’s activity part of employer’s business
- Activity undertaken on employer’s behalf
- Risk created by employer employing the employee
These criteria were outlined in The Christian Brothers Case.
In which case was the akin to employment test confirmed?
Cox v Ministry of Justice
This case emphasized the importance of the last three criteria.
True or false: Employers are vicariously liable for the torts of independent contractors.
FALSE
Confirmed in Barclays Bank v Various Claimants; independent contractors are liable for their own actions.
What happens when responsibility for an employee’s actions is shared by more than one employer?
Responsibility can be shared jointly
As seen in Viasystems v Thermal Transfer.
In the given legal scenario, is TF likely to be considered an employee?
Yes, TF is likely to be considered an employee
Assumed due to regular salary, integration of work, and control by D.
What is the conclusion regarding TF’s employment status in the scenario provided?
TF will be classed as an employee
This conclusion is based on the facts presented.
What is required for the second rule of vicarious liability regarding an employee’s wrongdoing?
A ‘close or sufficient connection’ between the employee’s wrongdoing and the nature of their employment
This test is used in conjunction with the old ‘course of employment’ test.
Which case first considered the close connection test for vicarious liability?
Lister v Hesley Hall
This case confirmed the test for determining employer liability for employee actions.
Name two cases that confirmed the close connection test for vicarious liability.
- Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society
- Mohamud v Morrisons Supermarkets
These cases illustrate the application of the close connection test in vicarious liability.
True or false: An employer can be held vicariously liable for an employee’s intentional torts.
TRUE
The test can apply to both torts and intentional torts committed by an employee.
In which case was an employer held liable for an employee’s crime?
Matis v Pollock
This case is an example where the employer was held vicariously liable for the employee’s criminal actions.
Fill in the blank: The field of activities or nature of TF’s job was that he was employed to coach football to children each week, which created a sufficient connection between his job and the wrongdoing.
coaching
This connection justifies the school’s liability in terms of social justice.
What is the outcome if TF’s wrongdoing occurred during the course of employment?
D is likely to be vicariously liable for TF’s tort or crime
This means D will pay compensatory damages to C.
What happens if TF’s wrongdoing did not occur during the course of employment?
D is unlikely to be vicariously liable for TF’s tort or crime
For example, if TF crashed his car giving C a lift which D had forbidden.
