Unit 4.1- Employer Liability VL

Question 1

Where was the scope of VL considered?

Answer 1

Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare

Question 2

What are the three requirements?

Answer 2

Employee

Commits a tort

In course of employment

Question 3

What test determines whether someone is an employee?

Answer 3

Material Test from Ready Mix Concrete

• Agree that they are performing service for remuneration for employer
• Agree that in performance of service they are under the control of another
• Other elements of a contract of service exist

Question 4

Reasons for VL?

Answer 4

Moral

• Encourages accident prevention
• Since employer makes profit from employees’ activities, should also take care for safety of others

Practical

• Employees may not be worth suing financially
• Employers are in a better position to insure against liability
• Employers can pass cost of insurance to customers through prices of goods

Question 5

Define acting in the course of employment

Answer 5

Classic Salmond definition given authority in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd. VL for

• Wrongful acts that have been authorised (Poland v Parr)
• Acts that have been authorised carried out in unlawful way (Century Insurance)

Question 6

Extensions of Salmond’s definition to prohibited acts?

Answer 6

Rose v Plenty (accepted deliveries): if for furthering business, VL

Twine v Bean’s Express (crashed when giving hitchhiker a ride): if not for furthering business, no VL

Question 7

Extension of Salmond’s definition to intentional torts?

Answer 7

Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co: took advantage of position and fraudulently transferred property

Lister v Hesley Hall (more recent)- VL if closely related to the every day tasks of job

• L v HH: abused whilst in care home and working as a warden
• Maga: VL for priest abusing 12yo as was in priests clothes most of the time (therefore repping church) and met boy at disco held by church

Question 8

Can an employer indemnify himself?

Answer 8

Lister v Romford Ice

• Yes
• BUT gentleman’s agreement for insurers not to go after employers (bad working relations otherwise) unless there was evidence of collusion/ wilful misconduct

Question 9

Define ‘a frolic of his own’

Answer 9

Joel v Morison- acting outside course of employment when he commits a tort. Relevant factors:

• Extent of deviation from authority
• Purpose of departure from authority
• Question of degree on case