Direct and Vicarious Liability

Question 1

Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society

Answer 1

• vicarious liability can arise in “relationships akin to employment”
  1. Relationship capable of giving rise to vicarious liability?
  2. Sufficient connection between alleged acts and relationship

Religious order and ecclesiastic authorities both liable for abuse to children. In substance, although not employment for vicarious liability it was enough for “akin to employment”.

Question 2

Lister v Hesley Hall

Answer 2

• departs from Salmon test by giving “close connection test”
• not enough that employment gives opportunity but delictual act is inherent risk in nature of business
• School wardens abuse sufficient for vicarious liability.

Question 3

Vaickuviene v J Sainsburys Plc

Answer 3

• not fair, just, reasonable to hold employers liable
• boundaries of “close connection test”
• murder of colleague is not a normal feature of employee relationship
• no vicarious liability

Question 4

Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association

Answer 4

• recognising a “non-delegable duty”
• SC held that there was one here

1. vulnerable persons
2. antecedent relationship
3. no control over defenders actions
4. delegation of integral function
5. third party negligence

Question 5

Armes v Nottingham CC

Answer 5

• foster parents and local authority is a “relationship akin to employment”
• local authority could be liable for parents actions

Question 6

Hawley v Luminar Leisure

Answer 6

• vicarious liability shifted to nightclub

- more significant control over work

Question 7

Control of employment indicators?

Answer 7

• employers power of selection
• payment of wages
• right of suspension/dismissal
• nature of duty

Question 8

Viasystems v Thermal Transfer

Answer 8

• vicarious liability is joint and several

- subcontracted parties both liable for negligence

Question 9

Cox v Ministry of Justice

Answer 9

• quasi-employment is “relationship akin to employment”

- Crown liable for delict committed by prisoner

Question 10

Hemphill v Williams

Answer 10

• driver took significant deviation
• employers held to be vicarious liable
• still acting in employers business (school children on board)

Question 11

Majrowski v Guy & St Thomas’s NHS Trust

Answer 11

• sufficient connection between work and harassment to employee
• manager has authority to tell employees what to do

Question 12

Esso v Scottish Ministers

Answer 12

• contractors for road construction project
• did not ensure contamination had been properly contained
• could not shunt off responsibility
• non-delegable duty of care

Question 13

Mohamud v Morrisons plc

Answer 13

• fair and just that his employers should be held liable.
• racial motive was irrelevant
• close connection test is fairly far reaching
• USB stick at petrol station