Topic 1: Vicarious Liability

Question 1

Iko v John Holt

Answer 1

Servant and Independent Contractor

Question 2

Hewitt v Bonvin

Answer 2

Principle: The vehicle owner is liable only if the tort was committed where the casual agent was driving “for some purpose of the owner”.

Facts
A father allowed his son to use his car to take the son’s girlfriend home. The son had an accident. On a claim for damages by the victim against the father, Held: The father was not liable, as the son was not acting wholly or partly for the father’s purpose by carrying his girlfriend home in the father’s car.

Question 3

Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffiths Ltd, (1947) AC 1

Answer 3

Principle: As a general rule, an employer who lends out his servant will remain liable unless he can prove that at the time the tort was committed, he had divested himself of all control over the servant.

Facts
The appellant employer of a mobile crane driver hired him out to the respondent company to unload a ship. By the contract:

1. the driver was to be the servant of the respondent
2. the respondent had immediate control of the driver and could tell him which boxes to load and where to place them, but they had no power to tell him how to operate the controls of the crane, on the other hand,
3. the driver was paid by the appellant who alone had the power of dismissal. In the course of loading the ship, a third party was injured as a result of the driver’s negligence. The question was whether the appellant’s general employer or the respondent’s special employer was vicariously liable for the driver’s tort.

Held:

It is a general rule that an employer who lends out his servant will remain liable unless he can prove that at the time the tort was committed, he had divested himself of all control over the servant. For the respondent to be liable, they must not only control the task to be performed but also the manner in the task was to be performed. In this case, it is easier to infer that the appellant continued to control the method of performance since they own the crane and the driver remains responsible to them… therefore they alone were liable.

Question 4

Collins v Hertfordshire

Answer 4

Principle: The nature of employment test. i.e the distinction between a contract for services and contract of service.

OWING to the negligence of K., the acting resident house surgeon, and of P., the pharmacist, of a hospital, and to their disregard of the regulations (which regulations had not been brought to K.’s notice), a lethal mixture was prepared for injection into C., a patient, instead of the harmless anæsthetic ordered by H., a visiting surgeon. C.’s life might have been saved had K., as she should have done, realised and drawn attention to the reason for his convulsions.

Held
In this action by C.’s widow, Hilbery, J. the hospital authority liable for allowing a negligent system to exist, and for the negligences of K. and P., but not for the negligence of H.; and H. liable for his own negligence in failing to check the correctness of the mixture.

Question 5

Stevenson, Jordan Harrison Ltd v MacDonald & Evans

Answer 5

Principle: The Court distinguished between a ‘contract of service’ – which made the worker an employee – and a ‘contract for services’ – which made them an independent contractor. It established the integration (organisation) test which is an alternative to the control test.

Facts

An engineer wrote a book that used knowledge that he acquired whilst he was working for a firm in different capacities. Section 5(1) of the Copyright Act 1911 provides that if the author of a work was under “a contract of service,” then the first owner of the copyright shall be the person by whom the author was employed.

Held

That the author was the owner of the copyright in the book in general, but that some of the material (i.e material that he acquired whilst he was an employee which fell within the Copyright Act 1911) should be redacted. The author’s contracts with the claimant were mixed: sometimes he was an employee, sometimes an independent contractor.

Question 6

James v. Mid-Motor Nig. Co. Ltd

Answer 6

Principle: For a Master to be vicariously liable for the tort of his servant it must first be proven that the servant committed the crime and the Master will only be liable for primary liabilities.

Facts
A man paid for a vehicle on hire purchase and paid premium for a
comprehensive insurance after which the company was found to be
fictitious and the manager of the insurance company deliberately set out to defraud the man.

Held
The Supreme Court held the defendant was vicariously
liable. The court entered damages in favour of the plaintiff for deceit committed by the company through its branch manager.

Question 7

Cassidy v Ministry of Health

Answer 7

Principle
Liability for Hospitals in case of servants negligence

Facts
The claimant was a patient at a hospital run by the defendant who required routine treatment to set the bones in his wrist. Due to negligence on the part of one of the doctors, the operation caused his fingers to become stiff. The claimant sued the defendant in the tort of negligence on the basis of vicarious liability.

Held

The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was vicariously liable.

The fact that the worker engages in specialised and technical work for which he is specially qualified does not mean that he is necessarily not a servant. The Court held that a person is a servant of the defendant if he was chosen for the job by the defendant and is fully integrated into the defendant’s organisation.

Question 8

Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board

Answer 8

Principle
A master will not be held liable for his servants tort unless it was committed during the course of his employment. (Manner of doing the work)

Facts
A transport undertaking had a contract with a petroleum company for the carriage and delivery of their petrol in lorries, agreeing to insure the lorries against any spillage or fire of the petroleum. The lorries were insured by an insurance company against liability to third parties. While one of the lorries was delivering petrol at a gas station, the undertaking’s driving lit a cigarette, causing an explosion and consequent damages.

Held
The transport undertaking was held vicariously liable for the damage caused by their employee’s negligence. The employee was negligent in the discharging of his duties by smoking as he did, yet was nevertheless in the course of discharging his duties to his employer and, thus, the employer was liable

Question 9

Popoola v. Pan African Gas Distributors

Answer 9

Principle

A master will not be held liable for his servants tort unless it was committed during the course of his employment. (Manner of doing the work)

Facts

The servants of the defendant gas company were delivering gas cylinders to the plaintiff’s home. While unloading, one of the cylinders caught fire from a lighted cigarette in the hand of another servant. The resultant explosion and fire completely destroyed the plaintiff’s house. The plaintiff sued for negligence and damage.

Held

That the servants were negligent in a duty which was within the scope of their employment and the defendant employers were liable

Question 10

Okeowo v Sanyaolu

Answer 10

Principle

A master will not be held liable for his servants tort unless it was committed during the course of his employment

Facts

The deceased was driving a car which belonged to the appellant and damaged the respondents property. A civil action was instituted for the deceased’s negligence. The appellant disputed that the deceased was his driver or that he was driving for his purpose. (Manner of doing the work)

Held
There’s a presumption that the deceased was the agent or servant of the appellant while driving his vehicle and that presumption was not rebutted.

NB: Contrast with Beard v London General Omnibus

Question 11

Beard v London General Omnibus

Answer 11

Principle
A master will not be held liable for his servants tort unless it was committed during the course of his employment. (Manner of doing the work).

Facts
The conductor of an omnibus drove the omnibus through side streets, outside of the bus route, at a fast pace in the absence of the bus driver. In doing so, he negligently hit and injured a man. The man sued for damages from the owners of the omnibus.

Held
The Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the employer of the conductor was liable for the conductor’s negligent acts.
His employers were not liable since the conductor was employed to collect fares not to drive buses and the act was entirely outside the scope of his employment.

Question 12

Ruddiman & Co v Smith

Answer 12

Principle

A master will not be held liable for his servants tort unless it was committed during the course of his employment. (Authorized limits of time and place.)

Facts

A clerk, before going home but after the hours of his employment, accidentally left a tap running which flooded the premises.

Held
The clerk’s employers were held liable for the damage to adjoining premises as the act was considered to be within the scope of his employment.

Question 13

Joel v Morrison

Answer 13

Principle
A master will not be held liable for his servants tort unless it was committed during the course of his employment. (Authorized limits of time and place)

Facts
The plaintiff was walking on foot on a public highway. The defendant had a horse and a cart, which were under the care, government and direction of his servant. The servant was driving the cart carelessly, improperly and negligently and struck the plaintiff with the cart whilst making a detour from the task, which his master had sent him for. The plaintiff fell on the ground and as a result, one of his legs was fractured. He was prevented from conducting his business for six months, he had to incur medical expenses and further expenses in order to employ workers to look after his business. The plaintiff sought compensation from the master.

Decision/Outcome
The verdict was in favour of the plaintiff.

(1) The master is liable for the careless driving of his servant if the servant is driving the cart on his master’s business or if the servant, being on his master’s business, decides to take a detour.

(2) The master is not liable for the careless driving of his servant, if the servant decides to lend the cart to another person without the master’s knowledge or the cart is secretly taken by a person who is not at the time employed on his master’s business.

Question 14

Whatman v Pearson

Answer 14

Principle: Where the evidence shows the servant was driving in his masters business, the onus is on the def (master) to prove that at the time of the accident, the servant was in a frolic of his own. (Authorized limits of place)

Facts

A servant who was in charge of a horse and vart throughout the day, without permission drove them to his house for his mid-day meal.

Held
The employer was held liable for the damage caused by the horse when it ran away after being left unattended. Though the servant deviated only a quater-mile off his authorized route the purpose was to obtain refreshment which was reasonably incidental to his employment

See also Shobo v Ailemo

Question 15

Storey v Ashton

Answer 15

Principle
There won’t be any vicarious liability if the employee engages in conduct that is clearly unrelated to the roles of his employment i.e frolic of his own.

Facts
The defendant in this case, was a wine merchant who, in the course of employment, sent his clerk and his car man off with a horse and cart to make a delivery of wine and collect and return the empty bottles. During their journey from doing this, rather than completing this task set by the employer, the car man was told by the clerk to drive in the opposite direction to visit his brother-in-law as it was past 3.00pm on a Saturday and outside of business hours. Following this change of direction, the car man ran over the plaintiff.
An action was brought against the employer by the claimant.

Held
It was determined that the driver was acting outside the course of his employment.

Therefore, the employer was not liable for the negligence of his employee.

Question 16

AG v Dadey

Answer 16

Principle: Where a driver/servant takes his employer’s vehicle without permission and uses it for some purpose which is unauthorized the employer will not be held liable.

Facts

A driver employed by the Ghana National fire service gave a fellow employer a lift home in one of the fire service vehicles against express prohibitions.

Held: Employers Weren’t liable for his negligence.

Question 17

CFAO v Ikpeazu

Answer 17

Principle: A Master may be liable for his servants act even there he expressly forbade it

Question 18

Plumb v. Cobden Flour Mills Co

Answer 18

Principle: A Master may be liable for his servants act even there he expressly forbade it but where the prohibition merely deals with conduct within the sphere of employment his liability will be unaffected by a breach of it.

Facts:

A workman employed to do certain work by hand, and finding it more convenient to use his employer’s machinery for the purpose, did so unknown to his employers and was thereby injured.

Held
That though he had acted within the scope of his employment and could not be said by his conduct to have brought on himself a new and added peril, he had failed to show that the accident arose “out of his employment.”

See also James v Mid-Motors earlier mentioned

Question 19

Limpus v London General Omnibus
(Cited in James v Mid-Motors supra)

Answer 19

Principle: A Master may be liable for his servants act even there he expressly forbade it but where the prohibition merely deals with conduct within the sphere of employment his liability will be unaffected by a breach of it.

Facts

A bus driver was given explicit written instructions not to race with or obstruct other buses. The driver disobeyed the order and while he was racing with another bus, a collision occurred.

An action was brought against the bus company for the reckless and improper conduct of its driver.

The bus company attempted to avoid liability by arguing that it had strictly prohibited its drivers from obstructing the movement of other buses.

Held
Despite the fact that the driver had disobeyed the order, the Court decided that he was acting within the scope of his employment. The employers were held liable because, at the time of the accident, the driver was nonetheless doing what he was employed to do, i.e., he was acting within the scope of his employment. It was immaterial whether his act was prohibited.

It was believed that the driver was, though in an improper manner, promoting his employer’s passenger service business by seeking to disturb another bus.

See also
Canadian pacific railway v lockhart

Question 20

Twine v Bean’s Express Ltd

Answer 20

Principle: A Master may be liable for his servants act even there he expressly forbade it but where the prohibition merely deals with conduct within the sphere of employment his liability will be unaffected by a breach of it.

Facts
A van driver was instructed not to give lifts to unauthorized persons and a notice to this effect was put up on the dashboard of the van. Despite this, he gave a lift to an unauthorized person. As a result of the driver’s negligence, the passenger died.

Held
It was held that because the employee was not acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident, the employer was not held liable for the incident.

The driver was performing an unauthorized act, so he was acting outside the scope of his employment.

Question 21

Jarmakani Transport ltd V Abeke

Answer 21

Principle: A Master may be liable for his servants act even there he expressly forbade it but where the prohibition merely deals with conduct within the sphere of employment his liability will be unaffected by a breach of it.

Facts

A servant of the defendant had disobeyed instructions and taken a passenger aboard the lorry. On the lorry, was the inscription; “passengers not allowed”

Held

Court held he was employed to carry goods not passengers. Employers were not liable.
NB the decision was reached based on an earlier one in Meninu v Igwe.

Question 22

Poland v Parr & Sons

Answer 22

Principle
For an employer to be liable for the torts of his servant in connection with the promotion of his business interests the act must not be so extreme or unreasonable

Facts

A contractor’s employee was, in the course of his employment, following close behind his employer’s waggon carrying sugar bags. Seeing a boy with a hand on one of the bags, the employee believed the boy to be stealing sugar and hit him. This caused the boy to fall and the waggon to run over his foot, leading to the loss of his leg. The boy had not, in fact, been stealing the sugar although the employee had believed so.

Held

The Court held that the employer was liable as it was an impliedly authorised act conducted during the employee’s course of employment and as a result of the employee acting within the scope of his duty to protect the employer. Although the employer held that the employee was acting without their direct nor indirect authority, the Court held that the employee had an implied authority to act to protect his employer’s property if he has reasonable ground to believe that it was in danger. The Court stipulated that the employee’s actions were entirely in the interests of protecting the employer, although it was an excessive means of doing so.

Question 23

Daniels v Whetstone Entertainments ltd

Answer 23

Principle
For an employer to be liable for the torts of his servant in connection with the promotion of his business interests the act must not be so extreme or unreasonable

Facts

A steward (bouncer) assaulted a customer in the dance hall. The person involved was removed to the outside of the premises and the steward was told by his employer to continue with his duties. The steward proceeded to go outside and assaulted the victim again.

Held
It was held the first assault was in the course of employment, but the second was not. The first being the employer was jointly accountable for the torts of the steward, but the second was outside the course of employment.

Question 24

Ogundanan v Akinwunmi

Answer 24

Principle
Same as last case

Facts
A peculiar situation arose when a customer of a bani lost some money while on the banks premises and a cashier blamed it on the pltff who was arrested and imprisoned for 3 days & released without prosecution. He then brought an action against the bank (for false imprisonment) as employers of the cashier.

Held.

Bank wasn’t liable as the cashier couldn’t be said to be acting within the scope of his employment when he made the accusations. The judge however stated that the decision might’ve been different if the “accused” was a security officer employed by the bank.

According to Taylor J, the decision would have been different if the accusation was for stealing the bank’s money.

Question 25

ILKIW v. SAMUELS

Answer 25

Principle
When a servant improperly delegates his task to an unqualified third part, the master will not be liable for any negligence of that third party, but he will be liable for the Negligence if tbe servant in allowing an unqualified person to act.

Facts
A Lorry driver employed to drive sugar to a warehouse with express instructions not to allow anyone else to drive it. Subsequently he allowed a warehouseman to move the lorry. An Accident caused by warehouseman’s incompetence which resulted in injury to the pltff.

Held.

The def was held liable, not for any careless on the part of the workman since he was not the defs servant, but on account of the driver’s negligence during the course of his employment in allowing an incompetent to drive the vehicle.

Question 26

General Metalware Co Ltd v Lagos City Council

Answer 26

The principle and rationale in Ilkiw v Samuels was applied here.

Where a bus driver employed by the defs allowed a timekeeper, also employed by the defs, to drive a bus, which, owing to the timekeepers Carelessness, crashed through the wall of the pltffs factory, causing extensive damage. As in the cases supra the defs were held liable on the same basis

Question 27

Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co

Answer 27

Principle

A master may be liable for his servants fraud perpetrated in the course of the masters business whether the fraud was committed for the masters benefit or not.

Facts
An employee who worked for a firm of solicitors in the capacity of a conveyancing manager (managing clerk) was given the authority to arrange and negotiate the sales of real estate. Mrs Lloyd, the plaintiff, was a client of the firm and she was dealing with the managing clerk regarding the sale of two of her properties. The employee fraudulently induced and convinced the plaintiff to transfer ownership of her property to himself. He then used it for personal gain.

Held

The court concluded unanimously that the defendants should be held vicariously liable for the fraud.

Lord Macnaghten was convinced that a principal was liable for the fraud of his agent if the fraud was committed in the course of the agent’s employment and did not go beyond the scope of his agency. This was the case regardless of whether the fraud was committed for the benefit of the principal or not. The client had been invited by the firm to deal with their managing clerk. The fact that the agent acted dishonestly for his own benefit was irrelevant.

Question 28

United African Co Ltd v Saka Owoade

Answer 28

Principle
Same as previous case.

Facts.

The def a transport contractor sought business from the plaintiffs. He introduced them to two men whom he said were his driver and clerk and stated that whenever the plaintiffs had any goods to be transported they should give the goods to the 2 men. The plftt did this but the goods were never delivered and the driver and clerk were subsequently convicted of stealing the goods.

Held

Since the conversion was in the course of the employment of the defs servants the def was held vicariously liable

Question 29

Dola v John.

Answer 29

Principle

Same as previous case

Facts
The def a licensed goldsmith employed R as his journeyman. The pltff a customer if the def gave R some gold ornaments to deliver to the def, in the belief that the def sent R to collect them. R absconded with the ornaments and the pltff sought to recover damages from the def.

Held

The def was held liable. By his previous conduct in sending R to collect work from the pltff, the def held himself out to the pltff as having authorized R to transact on such business ( though he hadn’t done so in that precise occasion)

Question 30

Ellis v Sheffield Gas Consumers Co

Answer 30

Principle
The tort of an independent contractor can be authorized.

Facts

The defendants without having sought any actual authority to do so hired contractors to dig a hole in the road. The contractors failed to properly replace the hole and the claimant was injured as a result.

Held

The defendants were held vicariously liable because the contractor had only been carrying out the task set by the defendants who had in effect sanctioned the tort.

Question 31

Honeywill v Larkin Bros

Answer 31

Principle
Vicarious liability for independent Contractors neg in circumstances where the duty of care is non-delgable

Facts

Plaintiff contracted Defendant to take pictures on the inside of X’s cinema and due to Defendant’s negligence there was fire damage

Held
CA held that Plaintiff would be liable to X and therefore was entitled to recover for negligence from Defendant.

See also Black v Christ Church Finance Co

Question 32

Holiday v National Telephone Co

Answer 32

Principle
Same as previous case

Facts

the plaintiff, Mr. Holiday, was injured when he fell into an uncovered manhole on a public road. The manhole belonged to the defendant, National Telephone Co. Mr. Holiday sued the company for negligence, claiming that they failed to maintain the manhole properly, leading to his injury.

Held
The trial court ruled in favor of Mr. Holiday, finding the National Telephone Co. negligent and liable for his injuries. The company appealed the decision.

Question 33

Barnett v. Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

Answer 33

Principle
Non delegable duties if independent contractors

Facts
a doctor was found to be in breach of his duty but not liable as the cause of injury would not have been prevented in any event regardless of doctor’s negligent or not.

Question 34

Iyere v BFFN

Answer 34

Principle: Joint tortfeasors include

1. Principal & Agent
2. Employer & Employee
   3.Employer & Independent Contractors with a few exceptions
3. A person who instigates another to commit a tort
4. A person who takes concerted action to a common end and commits a tort in the course of execution.

Question 35

Rotimi v Adegunle, (1959) 4 FSC 19

Answer 35

Principle: As a general rule, an employer who lends out his servant will remain liable unless he can prove that at the time the tort was committed, he had divested himself of all control over the servant.

Fact: The appellant hired a lorry together with the driver from the respondent, to convey cargo from lbadan to Abeokuta. The respondent’s driver drove negligently and collided with a tree, injuring the appellant hirer who was in the lorry. Held: The respondent permanent employer was vicariously liable for the injuries sustained by the appellant, the respondent having failed to discharge the burden of proving, that control of the driver had passed to the appellant hirer at the time of the accident. In this case BRETT FJ said: “That where the owner of a machine lets it out on hire and sends his servant to operate it, the burden of proving that the responsibility for the negligence of the servant has passed to the driver rests on the permanent employer and… The burden is a heavy one which can only be discharged in quite exceptional circumstances…

Question 36

Young v Box

Answer 36

Principle: Lord Denning held that to determine whether a trot has been committed by a servant involves two questions.

1. Is the employee/servant personally liable in tort? (Primary responsibility)
2. Should the master be held responsible? (principal liability).

Question 37

Ferguson v Dawson, (1976) 1 WLR 1213

Answer 37

Principle: Contractual test determining whether a person is a servant or merely an independent contractor; It is immaterial that the contractual term expressly states it, attention must be given to the whole of the contract comprehensively.

Fact: The plaintiff had fallen from a roof whilst working for the defendants, and had claimed damages for breach of statutory duty. The parties disputed whether the plaintiff was an employee or a self-employed independent contractor. Held:
A building labourer was an employee and therefore protected by certain safety legislation, on the basis of the type of work done and the degree of control exercised over it. This was despite a specific contractual term stating that he was self-employed, and it means that employers cannot evade certain responsibilities simply by choosing to describe their workers as self-employed. The real relationship of the parties was that of master and servant.

Question 38

Canadian Pacific Railway Co v Lockhart, (1942) AC 591

Answer 38

The appellant, an employer, expressly prohibited its staff from driving uninsured company cars on the company ‘s business. One of the employee drove an uninsured car in disobedience of the instructions while in the course of his employment and negligently injured the respondent.
Held: The general rule is that mere prohibition limiting the manner of performing a job will not relieve the employer of liability if it is disobeyed. LORD THANKERTON said that in this case, it was not the acting as driver that was prohibited, but the non insurance of the motor car, if used as a means incidental to the execution of the work which he was employed to do. It follows that the prohibition merely limited the way in which, the servant was to execute the work which he was employed to do, and that breach of the prohibition did not exclude the liability of the master to third parties . The appellant were therefore liable.

Question 39

Williams v Hemphil

Answer 39

Deviation to please children of the employer is still within the course of employment, thus the employer remains liable.

Question 40

Tarry v Ashton, (1846) 1 QBD 314

Answer 40

Principle: Works done over or adjoining a highway are non-delegable.

Fact: The defendant, A, was an occupier of a house, on which front a heavy lamp protruded near a highway. The lamp fell into disrepair and the defendant instructed an independent contractor to inspect and repair it. The contractor negligently repaired the lamp which later collapsed and injured the plaintiff passerby. Held: The defendant was liable. His duty to repair the lamp was not discharged. the repair of the lamp near the highway was for a purpose other than the normal use of the highway. It was no excuse that the injury was caused by the negligence of the contractor who failed to do a proper job.

Question 41

Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, (2006) 3 WLR 125

Answer 41

The claimant in the case, Ms Majrowski, worked for the NHS Trust. She claimed that her manager there had subjected her to a course of conduct which amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. As you will know from reading Chapter 13, the Act provides a civil right to sue for harassment, and so Ms Majrowski sued her employers, claiming they were vicariously liable for the manager’s behaviour. Held:
The Court of Appeal agreed that it was possible for an employer to be vicariously liable in this situation, and the test to be applied was the same as that applied in Lister and subsequent cases, looking at the closeness of the connection between the breach of duty and the employment, whether the risk was incidental to the business, and whether it was fair and just to hold the employer responsible. The courts would also need to look closely at the words of the statute, to determine whether it was intended to exclude vicarious liability, and in this, the Court of Appeal held, they could be guided “where appropriate” by questions of policy. It was held that an employer can also be liable for an employee’s breach of a statutory duty, even if the statute appears to impose liability only on individuals.

Question 42

Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam, (2003) 1 All ER 97

Answer 42

The case itself is fairly straightforward in terms of vicarious liability: Dubai Aluminium had been defrauded of $50 million, by two people referred to as Mr S and Mr T, with the help of a solicitor, Mr A. Mr A was a partner in a firm called Amhersts, and the Partnership Act 1890 provides that where a partner in a firm commits a wrongful act “,in the ordinary course of business of the firm’, the firm effectively has vicarious liability for that act. Accordingly, Dubai sued Amhersts for compensation, and Amhersts settled the case for $10 million. They then sought to get back some of this from Mr S and Mr T, under the Civil Liability, (Contribution) Act 1978. Mr S and Mr T, however, claimed the Act did not apply because Amhersts were not vicariously liable for the fraud; one of their reasons was that the fraud had not been committed in the course of business. Held:
The House of Lords held that it had, and confirmed that the correct test was whether there was a “close and direct connection” between the employee’s duties and the criminal act: “The wrongful conduct must be so closely connected with acts the . . . employee was authorised to do that . . . the wrongful conduct may fairly and properly be regarded as done while acting on the ordinary course of . . . the employee’s employment.”

Question 43

Lester v Hayley Hall

Answer 43

The employer was held vicariously liable for the act of the porter who sexually harassed the boys in the hostel.

See also, Various claimant v Catholic Child Welfare.

Question 44

Morris Supermarket v Various Claimants

Answer 44

Principle: Private act of spite, passion and resentment don’t fall under the test of close connection.

Fact: The IT guy who worked for the appellant uploaded the information of the appellant’s Customers in spite and resentment of his employer.

The court held that though such a case would be closely connected so as to recognise it as a tort committed in the course of employment, in this circumstance, he wasn’t acting in the course of employment. Therefore, the employer couldn’t be vicariously liable.