#Exam 2 (2)- Vicarious liability Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is the definition of vicarious liability

A

It is when an employer is liable for an the Torts that have been committed by an employee

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the two things which must be met in VL

A

The person who committed the Tort is an employee as opposed to an independent contractor
And he or she is acting in the course of his or her employment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What tests can be used to test whether someone is an employer is an employee

A

Control test
Integration test
Economic reality or multiple test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is a control test

A

How much control does the the employer have over the employee

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the integration test

A

If a persons work is fully integrated into the business he or she will be considered an employee

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is the economic reality or multiple test

A

Looks at whole situation
Including:ownership of tools, equipment or uniform, payment of wages, deductions of wages, job description and taking orders

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

When will an employer be liable

A

For a criminal act or an employee when there is a close connection between crime and what their role was
for an employee who is doing their job but acts against order
if employee does a job negligently

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

when will an employer not be liable

A

when an employee is on a frolic of their own

tort of an independant contractor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what act sets out how an employer can claim money back from tort committing employee

A

civil liability contribution act 1978

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what happened in the case of mersey docks & harbour board v coggins and griffths

A

hired crane driver negligently injures someone

LP- when someone is hired to company, hirer is liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what happened in the case of hawley v luminar leisure

A

bouncer assaults customer. employed by specialist company

LP- club hired him so they were liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what happened in the case of Ready mixed concrete v minister of pensions and national insurance

A

shows three conditions to be met to show employment relationship

1) relationship was similar
2) established close connection
3) fair and just to impose on employer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what happened in the case of E v English provinence of our lady charity / JGE V trustees of the Portsmouth roman catholic diocesan trust

A

claimant had been sexually abused while being looked after. showed close connection. diocese liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

COX V MOJ shows

A

prisoner is negligent to prison employee. prison liable still as there doesn’t have to be contact of employment. no need for commercial success but just for own interest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

fletcher v chancery supplies ltd

A

man crashes into police officer injuring him. company not liable as there was no explanation for him driving

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

viasystems v thermal transfer

A

more than one employer can be vicariously liable for a tort

17
Q

limpus v london general

A

bus driver in accident due to racing. even though ordered not to race by employer still liable because doing what employed to do

18
Q

rose v plenty

A

dairy instructs milkmen not to get help off children. milkmen ignore and child gets injured. diary guilty as benefitting from the work

19
Q

twine v beans express

A

person was doing unauthorised act and employers gained no benefit from it- not liable

20
Q

beard v london general omnibus company

A

bus conductor drove bus without permission. company not liable as out of course of employments

21
Q

lister v hesley hall

A

warden of boys school abused children. HOL held that there was close connection between the job and the abuse

22
Q

N v chief constable of mersey side police

A

off duty police officer takes women saying he will take her to police station but instead rapes her. no close connection between work and the assaults

23
Q

why was the club liable in mattis v pollock

A

they had encouraged the use of force in this case

24
Q

mohamud v morrisons

A

man assaults customer. sc held that was acting in the field of employment. -job was to deal with customers

25
Q

century insurance v NI road transport board

A

driver doing job but negligently- employer required to pay compensation. man lights cigarette at petrol station causing explosion.

26
Q

Hilton v Thomas Burton

A

workers take unauthorised break in work-van and crash and someone dies
LP-employers not liable as they are on frolic of their own.

27
Q

why is vicarious liability fair

A

more likely someone will get compensation
employers have insurance
justified as employer benefitting from work
fair on victims ie in lister and mohumad
encourages greater care

28
Q

why is vicarious liability unfair

A

contradicts idea of fault based liability
inconsistencies with road accident cases
rogue employees understand there is little chance of them being sued
rare that an employee will pay an employer back