sem 2 lesson 5 - employment law and vicarious laibltiy Flashcards
whats vicarious liability
Principle you may be able to hold to account in employment law terms - an employer for their acts of employees
an employer is vicariooulsy liable for
torts committed by employeee
an employer is striclty liable for employees torts what does this mean
no discussio about employer intentions or state of mind
if employee found to commit a tort/civil wrong in course of employment - employer is responsible for it without any available defenses
for employer to eb liable wat ar ehte 2 essentials
perosn who committed tort is employee of defendant
tort committed in course of employment
being employee of defendant distinguishes who
people who are self employed and not empliyees
those whosign contracts of service are called
employees
those who sign contracts for service are
self employed
employyee is not
temp staff or self employed
being in course of employment is a x x
specific context
why is employer responsible for all actions of employees and those working on behalf of them
by hiring someoen to do the job you put them in a position where accidnets/torts can happen
what case shows us employer is repsonibe for all acionts of employees and those working on behalf in the ‘course of employment’
Cox v Ministry of Justic 2016
outlin cox v MOJ
Catering manager gets bag of rice dropped on her by prisoners who are helping pout
kitchen manager wants to make claim MOJ responsible for tortious actions of prisoners
what does court say in cox v moj
yes
MOJ reesponsibel for tortious act of inmates
liabilty not stritcly in the sense of who’s employed but when there is a relationship of employment rather than the employment itself
if your doing a job badly you are still
in the course of employment
we onyl leave the course of employment when
we take quire an extreme step away from contractual repsonisbilty
what happened in hilton v thomas burton rrhosed
hilton took work van to go for frink a lunch unauthorised on the way back Hilton crashed and was killed
wife sued copany aruing they were vicariously liable for drivers negligence
but court ruled that tey were on a frollock of their won so company is not liable
johnson v tower boot is about
racial discimination and horribilie treatmnt of people at owrk
what happned in jobes v tower boot
claimant said there was abuse
employer argued abuse perpetrated by employees was coutner to workpalce policy and culture - the specfcall told pple not to therfore they ar not responsible for actions of defendant
court said no thats not right
the acts were comitted in the course of employment and yo repsonsibel for employees whilst htey do ttheir job
so cant get out of it
in reliton to jones v tower boot compnay what is the only way an employer rcan get out of repsonsiblity ptclrly for acts of bullying and racism
we as reasoable mployers coud not hace done anythign eles to stop this fromhappnin
had loads of trainaing , dicipisne people first time around and coudlnt do anything to preventit from geetig worse
we did awful lot
what nappned in hawley v lunminor leisre - nightclub bouncers
doormenr security hired temporality by a nightclub
become too violent and assaulted people
question was who was responsible for the behaviour
court says the party who had msot ocntro over the behaviour over how the doorman behaved
what does mohamed v morrison show
difficult to say you not responsibel for employees actions
what happenned in mohamed v morrison
claimant comesin and customer service person is very aggressive and ultimatley assults client
morrisons says hti sbehaviour is so wildly off base that its got nothing to do w ys
what does court say in mohammed v morrisn case
was person being customer service assitant/ in coruse of employment when this hapnede - yes
he was doing it innaporptaleyt but dont mean he wasnt doing hsi work- so yes morrison is responsible
why are systemes like vaciour liability exist
employers are people insured to payout on claims such as these - individuals not got money
employer mainatinas degree of control over employees so can encourage andhsoulf encourge employee to at repsonsibily
get profit off them as well
what cases do we remeber for acts comitted in course of employemtn
jones v tower boot
mohammed v morssions 2016
howley v luminar leisure ltd
if you want to make claim for damage arising from Health adn safety at work issues what is the timeline
3 years in all cases
in common law what si the timelnie to amke a claim for personal injury
3 years
if you just claiming for inaical loss or famges what is the time line
6 yeears
in employment claims if you hav suffered as a result iof work what si the timeframe to make a cliam
3 years from date condition becomes apparent
what is the limit for compensationi and awards in relation to H and S at work
no limit
what is enforcement
overlapping duties laid on employers, employees, local authorities and hte H and S executive
local authorities got lots of power but they give it to goverments and local authorities what do the lcoal authotieis fo
give notice snad fines and if company dont imporve can make bruh dont even worry
