16-Vicarious Liability

Question 1

What is vicarious liability?

Answer 1

When a third party is liable for tort committed by another.

As in employers responsible for employee.

Question 2

When a third party is liable for the tort of another.

Like when an employer is responsible for an employee actions.

Answer 2

Vicarious liability.

Question 3

What are the two main tests to prove vicarious liability?

Answer 3

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’?

Question 4

What is the control test and what is the modern case for this?

Answer 4

To decide if the employee is under control of employer.

Case: Hawley v Luminar Leisure (2006)-bouncer at nightclub.

Question 5

Hawley v Luminar Leisure (2006)

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

What case for more than one employer be responsible for vicarious liability?

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

Viasystems Tyneside v Thermal Transfer (2005)

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

What is the integration or organisation test and what is the leading case?

Answer 8

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)

Question 9

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?

Answer 9

The integration or organisation test.

Question 10

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?

Answer 10

E v English Province of Our Lady (2012)

Facts: A nun sexually abused a child and the Bishop was liable as an employer.

Question 11

E v English Province of Our Lady (2012)

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

What case demonstrates that an office holder can be considered an employee?

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

JGE v Trustees of Portsmouth RC Trust (2012)

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

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?

Answer 14

Mohamud v Morrison’s (2016)

Facts: D worked at petrol station and assaulted C for no apparent reason.

Question 15

Mohamud v Morrison (2016)

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

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?

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Cox v MoJ (2016)

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

What case is in contest with Cox v MoJ (2016) in that the employee was not held to be doing activities for the business?

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Fletcher v Chancery Supplies (2017)

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

What case demonstrates that even if an employee acts against orders the employer can still be vicariously liable?

Answer 20

Rose v Plenty (1976)

Facts: Dairy instructed its milkmen not to allow children to help on rounds but driver did and child was injured.

Question 21

Rose v Plenty (1976)

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Why case demonstrates that if the employee does an unauthorised act and the employer makes no benefit then employer is NOT vicariously liable?

Answer 22

Twine v Beans Express (1946)

Facts: C husband killed through negligence of driver who had been forbidden to give lifts.

Question 23

Twine v Beans Express (1946)

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

What case shows that if an employer acts outside of what they are employed to do the employer is not vicariously liable?

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

Beard v London General Omnibus (1900)

Answer 25

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.

Question 26

What case shows that if a crime is committed with close connection to employees work then employer will be vicariously liable?

Answer 26

Lister v Hesley Hall (2001)

Facts: School warden raped children he was looking after during working hours.

Question 27

Lister v Hesley Hall (2001)

Answer 27

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.

Question 28

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?

Answer 28

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.

Question 29

N v CC of Merseyside Police (2006)

Answer 29

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.

Question 30

What case demonstrates that if employee acts negligently in course of employment then employer can be vicariously liable?

Answer 30

Century Insurance v NI Transport Board (1942)

Facts: Employee was petrol tank driver and dropped match causing explosion damaging cars and houses.

Question 31

Century Insurance v NI Transport Board (1942)

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

What case demonstrates that employees acting ‘on a frolic of their own’ mean employer is not vicariously liable?

Answer 32

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.

Question 33

Hilton v Thomas Burton (1961)

Answer 33

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.

Question 34

What case contrasts with Hilton v Thomas Burton Ltd (1961)?

Answer 34

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.

Question 35

Smith v Stages (1989)

Answer 35

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.

Question 36

What legislation provides that the employer can recover compensation paid out by it for the actions of an employee?

Answer 36

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Question 37

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act (1978)

Answer 37

Provides that employer can recover compensation paid out for the actions of an employee.