Tort - General Negligence - Employers Liability/Vicarious Liability Flashcards
Wilsons and Clyde Coal Ltd v English
EL - DoC
Employers have a duty to take reasonable steps to provide:
1) Competent staff
2) adequate materials (plant, equipment & machinery)
3) a proper system of work
Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd
EL - duty to provide competent staff
Practical joker employee
Duty to provide competent staff also arises when an employer knows or ought to know about the risk a particular worker poses to fellow workers.
Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
EL - Duty to provide competent staff
C raped outside of work by a colleague, suffered nasty treatment from colleagues + superiors following complaint.
Duty to provide competent staff extends to protecting against psychological harm, therefore against bullying and harassment.
Walker v Northumberland County Council
EL - Safe system of work
social services worker had to deal with increasing number of cases without increased resource - stress - dismissed on grounds of permanent ill-health
Duty to provide safe system of work also covers employees who suffer stress as a result of their work.
Hatton v Sutherland
EL - Safe system of work
Stressed teacher - didn’t inform employers
DoC will arise re. stress at work where injury at work due to stress is reasonably foreseeable. Consider:
1) nature and extent of work done
2) signs from the employee himself
Melville v Home Office
EL - Safe system of work
Health care officer at prison - over 17 years retrieved 8 dead bodies.
Duty under Hatton approach may still arise even though stress results from witnessing traumatic episodes rather than day to day work where injury to health is foreseeable.
General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas
EL - safe workspace
cleaners climbed windows to clean - injured
Duty to provide safe workplace applies regardless of where the employees are working; employer has to assess the premises to which his employees are sent, if dangers are found he must devise and implement a system to eradicate them.
Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
VL - Definition of employees
A contract of service (employment contract) will usually exist if:
- Employees agree that, in consideration of a wage or other remuneration, they will provide their own work and skill in performance of some service for their employer;
- Employees agree, impliedly or expressly, that in performance of that service they will be subject to another person’s control in a sufficient degree to make that person the employer;
- The other provisions of the contract are consistent with its being a contract of services. (i.e. if the person had to use their own tools or staff, likely not to be an employee).
Lister and others v Hesley Hall
VL - ‘in course of employment’
Warden employed to care for children - sexual assaults
Vicarious liability will arise for:
1) Wrongful acts authorised by the employer
2) Wrongful and unauthorised modes of carrying out an authorised act.
Employers will be vicariously liable for prohibited intentional torts where there is sufficiency of connection between the tort and their employment.
Poland v Parr
VL - ‘in the course of employment’
If a man is protecting his employer’s property, he has implied permission to push away the thief, therefore the employer has authorised the tort and is vicariously liable.
Warren v Henleys Ltd
VL - ‘in course of employment’
Employee insulted by customer - punched customer - not acting in course of employment - personal act
An employer will not be vicariously liable for an employee’s actions when they are personal and neither authorised by nor connected with his employment.
Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board
VL - ‘in course of employment’
Delivery driver - cigarette whilst refueling
Where employee is carrying out an authorised act in an unauthorised way, the employer will be vicariously liable.
Harrison v Michelin Tyre Co Ltd
VL - ‘in course of employment’
Employee pushing truck - joke resulted in injury to C
Where employee is carrying out an authorised act in an unauthorised way, the employer will be vicariously liable.
Rose v Plenty
VL - ‘in course of employment’
Milkman allowed C to help with milkround
An employer will still be vicariously liable for prohibited acts done by an employee where these further the employer’s business.
Twine v Bean’s Express
VL - ‘in course of employment’
Van driver picked up hitchhiker - prohibited - died; held employer not VL as prohibited and didn’t further business.
An employer will not be VL for prohibited acts done by an employee where these do not further the employer’s business.
