2B - Vicarious Liability - Case List Flashcards
Poland v Parr
The Salmond Test
The employee must have committed an unintentional tort
Short v JW Henderson
Control Test
Determined the key factors to show if employee was in control
- power to select employee
- control over method of working
- right to suspend and dismiss
- payment of wages
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffiths
Control Test
The usual rule is that the employee remains the responsibility of the first employer who loaned them out, unless it can be proven that the second employer has more control
Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v McDonald and Evans
Integration Test
A worker is an employee if their role/work is fully integrated into the business. If it’s just accessory to the
Ready Mixed Concrete v MPNI
Developed the economic reality test
- Worker provides skill for a wage
- Agrees to employers having control
- All other factors are consistent with their being a contract of service
Viasystems Ltd v Thermal Transfer
There were two employers taht could potentially be liable
CoA held both employers can be liable and equally so
Who was entitled and in theory obliged to control the employee’s negligent act in order to prevent it?
Rose v Plenty
Dairy instructed their milkmen to not use child helpers on their rounds. One did use a boy who was injured due to the milkmans negligent driving. The dairy was liable as they were benefitting from the boy’s work
The employee is doing an expressed or implied authorised act
Limpus v London General Omnibus Company
Employer instructed bus drivers not to race other drivers and a driver caused an accident whilst racing. The employer was liable as the driver was doing what he was employed to do - even against orders
The employee is doing an authorised task but does something which has been expressly forbidden by his employer
Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board
Petrol tank driver was delivering petrol to a petrol station when he lit a cigarette and threw the lit match on the ground. The employer was liable as the driver was doing his job even though it was negligent
The employee is doing an authorised to ask but does something which has been expressly forbidden by his employer
Hilton v Thomas Burton
Employers not liable to pay compensation to the V as the workmen were on an unauthorised ‘frolic’ of their own and not in the course of employment
Twine v Beans Express
Employers were not liable as driver was doing an unauthorised act and employers were gaining no benefit from it
act = driver forbidden to give lifts but they still did
Unauthorised act with no benefit to the employer
Beard v London General Omnibus Co
Conductor drove the bus outside of his contract, as that’s not his job
Employer was not liable as the conductor was doing something outside the course of their employment
Expressly prohibited act
Lister v Hesley Hall
There was a close connection between his job (janitor) and what he did, as the sexual assaults were carried out on the school premises while looking after children
- Was the relationship between the employer and employee ‘akin to employment’
- Was the commission of the alleged tort ‘closely connected’ to the circumstances of the tort feasor’s employment
Catholic Welfare Society v Various Claimants
Set out 5 criteria which make it fair, just and reasonable to find a relationship ‘akin to employment’
- employer has means to compensate the V
- employee acting on behalf of the employer
- employee’s activity is part of the business
- employer created a risk of tort
- employer has control of employee
Supreme Court in Barclays Bank v Various Claimants
SC said even if all 5 stages are passed of the Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants, you must look at the underlying relationship to see if its akin to employment
Employers are generally not liable for the torts of independent contractors
