UK Vicarious Liability Flash cards
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001]
Principle: ‘Close connection’ test.
Summary: Warden sexually abused children in a boarding school.
Outcome: Employer held vicariously liable for the warden’s actions.
Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016]
Principle: Even wrongful acts outside employment duties can be covered if there’s a close connection to the job.
Summary: Petrol station attendant attacked a customer.
Outcome: Employer vicariously liable for the attack.
Bazley v Curry [1999] (Canada)
Principle: Expanded employer liability for acts related to trust and care.
Summary: Care worker sexually assaulted a resident.
Outcome: Employer vicariously liable due to the relationship of trust.
Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016]
Principle: An employer can be vicariously liable for a non-employee if they are in a similar relationship.
Summary: Prison catering assistant injured a colleague.
Outcome: Ministry of Justice vicariously liable for the assistant’s actions.
Viasystems Ltd v Thermal Transfer Ltd [2005]
Principle: Employer liable even for third-party contractors if there’s sufficient control over the work.
Summary: Employee of a subcontractor caused damage during work at a factory.
Outcome: Main employer found vicariously liable.
Rose v Plenty [1976]
Principle: Employer is liable even if the employee acts contrary to instructions.
Summary: Milkman let a child help him, causing an accident.
Outcome: Employer held vicariously liable for the child’s injury.
Century Insurance Co. Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942]
Principle: Employer liable for employee’s negligence during employment.
Summary: Driver negligently caused a fire while unloading petrol.
Outcome: Employer found vicariously liable.
Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012]
Principle: Employer liable even when the wrongful act is outside direct employment duties.
Summary: Priests sexually abused children at residential schools.
Outcome: Employer vicariously liable for abuse.
Warren v Henlys Ltd [1948]
Principle: Employer liable for acts within the course of employment, even if unauthorized.
Summary: Employee damaged a car while performing his job.
Outcome: Employer vicariously liable.
Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] (Australia)
Principle: Employer may be liable for wrongful acts committed by independent contractors if the employer has control.
Summary: Delivery driver injured a pedestrian.
Outcome: Employer vicariously liable.
Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002]
Principle: Employer is liable for fraudulent acts within the scope of employment.
Summary: Employee committed fraud against the company.
Outcome: Employer found vicariously liable.
Limpus v London General Omnibus Co. [1862]
Principle: Employer liable for employee’s wrongful acts during work.
Summary: Bus driver caused an accident while racing another bus.
Outcome: Employer held liable for the accident.
Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffiths Ltd [1947]
Principle: The employer of a servant in charge of the work controls the work.
Summary: Stevedore injured during loading, with the contract for the work held by a different employer.
Outcome: Employer vicariously liable for the injury.
Mattis v Pollock [2003]
Principle: Employer can be vicariously liable for an employee’s criminal actions.
Summary: Bouncer at a nightclub stabbed a customer.
Outcome: Employer held vicariously liable for the attack.
Armes v Nottingham City Council [2017]
Principle: Employer can be vicariously liable even if the person at fault is not directly employed.
Summary: Foster carer abused a child under the council’s care.
Outcome: Council found vicariously liable for the abuse.
Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co. [1930]
Principle: The act must be done during the course of employment for vicarious liability.
Summary: Railway employee injured a passenger while on duty.
Outcome: Employer held vicariously liable for the injury.
The Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants [2012]
Principle: Liability applies even if the employee’s conduct is criminal or outside the scope of employment.
Summary: Abuses by priests working at a school.
Outcome: The religious institution was vicariously liable.
Houghton v Transport Ltd [1983]
Principle: Employer vicariously liable for actions in the scope of employment.
Summary: Employee caused an accident while transporting goods.
Outcome: Employer held vicariously liable.
Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020]
Principle: A relationship of control and trust justifies vicarious liability.
Summary: A bank was held liable for the sexual assault of employees by a medical doctor.
Outcome: Barclays Bank found vicariously liable.
NA v Nottingham City Council [2018]
Principle: Vicarious liability applies to actions within the course of employment.
Summary: Social worker abused a child.
Outcome: The employer was held vicariously liable.
R (on the application of M) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016]
Principle: Employers can be held vicariously liable for negligent acts of employees.
Summary: Prison officer harmed an inmate.
Outcome: Employer held vicariously liable.
Blain v The Public Trustee [2011]
Principle: Employer liable for criminal actions of employees during employment.
Summary: Care worker stole from elderly patients.
Outcome: Employer held vicariously liable for the theft.
Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001]
Principle: Employers may be liable for third-party contractors under certain circumstances.
Summary: Delivery worker injured a pedestrian while performing delivery duties.
Outcome: Employer vicariously liable.
Haringey London Borough Council v B [2003]
Principle: Liability for wrongdoing of employees extends to non-criminal acts.
Summary: Worker at a local council sexually abused a child.
Outcome: Employer found vicariously liable.
Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew [1949]
Principle: Employer vicariously liable even if the employee’s conduct is unintentional.
Summary: A bartender’s negligence led to an assault on a customer.
Outcome: Employer vicariously liable.
C v D [2011]
Principle: Employers can be held vicariously liable for actions that occur within employment.
Summary: School teacher sexually abused a student.
Outcome: Employer found vicariously liable.
Chichester v Lister [1989]
Principle: The employer is vicariously liable even if the employee acts contrary to express instructions.
Summary: Salesman acted dishonestly during his job.
Outcome: Employer held vicariously liable.
B & Q v Davies [2007]
Principle: Liability extends even if the employee’s conduct is against company policy.
Summary: Employee injured a customer during a store demonstration.
Outcome: Employer found vicariously liable.
Cockcroft v Smith [1970]
Principle: Employers are liable if the employee was acting in the course of employment, even during non-regular duties.
Summary: Delivery driver caused an accident on a personal errand.
Outcome: Employer vicariously liable.
D v East Berkshire [2005]
Principle: Employer’s liability can apply to acts of employees causing harm.
Summary: School teacher caused harm during an interaction with a pupil.
Outcome: Employer held vicariously liable.
