Employment liability and Vicarious Liability

Question 1

The Child Welfare Case

Answer 1

for VL the D must be an “employee” not an independent contractor; the tort must be committed within the course of employment

• Headmaster was a lay member of a parish and was paid to teach the students
• He sexually abused children
• School wanted the institute of brothers to be liable as well
• Held: for the purposes of VL he was an employee of the institute of brothers and it was fair and reasonable to impose liability on them as well

Question 2

Ready Mix Concrete v Minister of Pensions

Answer 2

The tortfeasor must be an employee for VL

• He carried concrete in his own truck which was available for the company
• He wore a uniform and his truck was painted company colours
• Held: he wasn’t an employee for VL

Question 3

Viasystems Ltd v Thermal Transfer

Answer 3

Where the employee is borrowed he is an employee of both for commercial purposes

• The employee was a fitter’s mate who climbed through some ducting and fractured the sprinkler system and damaged the property
• COA held that both were Vicariously liable; he is working for the commercial purposes of both of them

Question 4

Century insurance v Northern Ireland Traffic Board

Answer 4

The Salmond Test: was the employee doing the job that he was supposed to do

• Petrol driver was delivering when he lit a cigarette and blew up the trick
• It was held that he was doing his job- driving a petrol truck

Question 5

Storey v Ashton

Answer 5

If the employee is off frolicking on his own then he will not be within the scope of employment

• They were delivering their own flasks while they were on the job
• Held: they were not acting within the course of employment

Question 6

Rose v Plenty

Answer 6

Where the Employee is expressly forbidden from doing something

• delivery men were forbidden from using children to help them deliver milk
• he did it anyways
• He was still doing what he was employed to do and therefore they were still liable under VL

Question 7

Lister v Hesley Hall

Answer 7

The Risk creation and close connection test

• where the employer has created an inherent risk that could materialize
• an abuse was committed by a warden of a home
• They were held liable as they created a risk when they hired him that could and did materialize

Question 8

AG for the British Virgin Islands v Hartwell

Answer 8

The Risk creation and the close connection test

• Police officer got ahold of a gun that he was not authorized to have
• he tried to kill his girlfriend
• NO VL as he wasn’t acting within the scope of his police work

Question 9

Toronto Power v Paskwan

Answer 9

Employers duty to provide safe an adequate tools
A crane which was used to pick up logs which was supposed to have a safety fitting but didn’t and it broke and killed someone

Question 10

Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning

Answer 10

Employers Duty to provide a safe place to work
Claimant was an experienced window cleaner and tried to pull out a window and the wood was rotten and he fell down several meters. It was held by the COA that there was no negligence and no breach by the employer

Question 11

Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing

Answer 11

Employers Duty to hire competent fellow employees and staff

• An employee always engaged in practical jokes
• He jumped out of hiding, scared someone and they broke their wrist
• There was held to be a breach because the employer knew that this employee regularly did this