16-Vicarious Liability Flashcards
What is vicarious liability?
When a third party is liable for tort committed by another.
As in employers responsible for employee.
When a third party is liable for the tort of another.
Like when an employer is responsible for an employee actions.
Vicarious liability.
What are the two main tests to prove vicarious liability?
1) Was the one who is claimed to have committed tort an employee?
2) Did employee commit the tort ‘during the course of their employment’?
What is the control test and what is the modern case for this?
To decide if the employee is under control of employer.
Case: Hawley v Luminar Leisure (2006)-bouncer at nightclub.
Hawley v Luminar Leisure (2006)
Principle: The control test in vicarious liability.
Facts: Bouncer who was outsourced to nightclub by bouncer firm assaulted customer outside premises. The bouncer firm went busy so C claimed against nightclub.
Claim allowed.
What case for more than one employer be responsible for vicarious liability?
Viasystems Tyneside v Thermal Transfer (2005)
Facts: C contracted D1 to install A/C. D1 sub-contracted D2 and subsequently D3 provided fitters. One of D3 fitters caused damage.
Both D2 and D3 equally liable to damages.
Viasystems Tyneside v Thermal Transfer (2005)
Principle: two parties can be liable for vicarious liability.
Facts: Facts: C contracted D1 to install A/C. D1 sub-contracted D2 and subsequently D3 provided fitters. One of D3 fitters caused damage.
Both D2 and D3 equally liable to damages.
What is the integration or organisation test and what is the leading case?
Established that: A worker will be an employee if they are fully integrated into the business and their work is not accessory.
Chauffeur-employee
Taxi driver-not an employee
Stevenson v MacDonald (1952)
Established that: A worker will be an employee if they are fully integrated into the business and their work is not accessory.
What is this test called regarding vicarious liability?
The integration or organisation test.
What case demonstrates that the court has to look for:
1) a relationship akin to employment
2) est. by a close connection so that
3) fair and just to impose liability on D?
E v English Province of Our Lady (2012)
Facts: A nun sexually abused a child and the Bishop was liable as an employer.
E v English Province of Our Lady (2012)
Established:
1) Relationship akin to employment
2) est. by a close connection so that
3) fair and just to impose liability on D
Facts: A nun sexually abused a child and the Bishop was liable as an employer.
What case demonstrates that an office holder can be considered an employee?
JGE v Trustees if Portsmouth RC Trust (2012)
Facts: girl raped by RC priest. It was held that church was liable because relationship was akin to one of an employee.
JGE v Trustees of Portsmouth RC Trust (2012)
Principle: That office holders can still be considers as employees.
Facts: girl raped by RC priest. It was held that church was liable because relationship was akin to one of an employee.
What case demonstrates that an employee acting in the field of their employment (at work and during working hours) who commits a tort can make an employer vicariously liable?
Mohamud v Morrison’s (2016)
Facts: D worked at petrol station and assaulted C for no apparent reason.
Mohamud v Morrison (2016)
Principle: If employee is acting within field of his employment (at work and during working hours) and commits injury, employer can be vicariously liable.
Facts: D worked at petrol station and assaulted C for no apparent reason.
What case demonstrates that any person who is integral to business activities for its benefit including not for profit, then the business can be vicariously liable?
Cox v MoJ (2016)
Facts: Cox worked at prison and prisoner dropped sack of rice on her back. Prisoner regarded as employee of prison service. MoJ vicariously liable.
Cox v MoJ (2016)
Principle: Any person carrying out activities for the befit of a business even not-for-profit can make the employer vicariously liable.
Facts: Cox worked at prison and prisoner dropped sack of rice on her back. Prisoner regarded as employee of prison service. MoJ vicariously liable.
What case is in contest with Cox v MoJ (2016) in that the employee was not held to be doing activities for the business?
Fletcher v Chancery Supplies (2017)
Facts: C was police officer on police peddle bike when D employee stepped out into his path. D employee claimed he was walking home so therefore not working.
Fletcher v Chancery Supplies (2017)
Principle: If employee is not doing activities for the business then there is no vicarious liability.
Facts: C was police officer on police peddle bike when D employee stepped out into his path. D employee claimed he was walking home so therefore not working.
What case demonstrates that even if an employee acts against orders the employer can still be vicariously liable?
Rose v Plenty (1976)
Facts: Dairy instructed its milkmen not to allow children to help on rounds but driver did and child was injured.
Rose v Plenty (1976)
Principle: Employer can still be vicariously liable even if employee disobeys orders.
Facts: Dairy instructed its milkmen not to allow children to help on rounds but driver did and child was injured.
Why case demonstrates that if the employee does an unauthorised act and the employer makes no benefit then employer is NOT vicariously liable?
Twine v Beans Express (1946)
Facts: C husband killed through negligence of driver who had been forbidden to give lifts.
Twine v Beans Express (1946)
Principle: Employers not vicariously liable as D was forbidden to give lift and it wasn’t for employer benefit.
Facts: C husband killed through negligence of driver who had been forbidden to give lifts.
What case shows that if an employer acts outside of what they are employed to do the employer is not vicariously liable?
Beard v London General Omnibus (1900)
Facts: Bus conductor who was supposed to collect fares drove the bus without authority and injured C. Employer not liable.
Beard v London General Omnibus (1900)
Principle: If employee does something he is not employed to do then employer is not vicariously liable.
Facts: Bus conductor who was supposed to collect fares drove the bus without authority and injured C. Employer not liable.
What case shows that if a crime is committed with close connection to employees work then employer will be vicariously liable?
Lister v Hesley Hall (2001)
Facts: School warden raped children he was looking after during working hours.
Lister v Hesley Hall (2001)
Principle: If employee commits crime that is connected to work then employer can be vicariously liable.
Facts: School warden raped children he was looking after during working hours.
What case is an example of when there was not close enough of a connection between employee crime and their job for employer to be vicariously liable?
N v CC of Merseyside Police (2006)
Facts: Off-duty policeman waits outside nightclub in uniform to lure girls back to his house for rape.
N v CC of Merseyside Police (2006)
Principle: If employee crime is not closely connected to work then employer not vicariously liable.
Facts: Off-duty policeman waits outside nightclub in uniform to lure girls back to his house for rape.
What case demonstrates that if employee acts negligently in course of employment then employer can be vicariously liable?
Century Insurance v NI Transport Board (1942)
Facts: Employee was petrol tank driver and dropped match causing explosion damaging cars and houses.
Century Insurance v NI Transport Board (1942)
Principle: if employee acts negligently, employer can still be vicariously liable.
Facts: Employee was petrol tank driver and dropped match causing explosion damaging cars and houses.
What case demonstrates that employees acting ‘on a frolic of their own’ mean employer is not vicariously liable?
Hilton v Thomas Burton Ltd (1961)
Facts: Employees took company vehicle to go for lunch but one of the employees (C husband) died through negligent driving. No vicarious liability.
Hilton v Thomas Burton (1961)
Principle: when employees are ‘on a frolic of their own’ employers are not vicariously liable.
Facts: Employees took company vehicle to go for lunch but one of the employees (C husband) died through negligent driving. No vicarious liability.
What case contrasts with Hilton v Thomas Burton Ltd (1961)?
Smith v Stages (1989)
Facts: Employee was driving to a place of work from another place of work. He was being paid during this time therefore employers vicariously liable.
Smith v Stages (1989)
Principle: Contrast with case of Hilton v Thomas Burton Ltd (1961).
Facts: Employee was driving to a place of work from another place of work. He was being paid during this time therefore employers vicariously liable.
What legislation provides that the employer can recover compensation paid out by it for the actions of an employee?
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act (1978)
Provides that employer can recover compensation paid out for the actions of an employee.
