Vacarious Liability Flashcards
Justifications
- The ‘deeper pockets theory’. Employer is more likely to be in a better position to compensate than the employee.
- the employers gains an economic benefit from the employees work so they should consider any related burdens.
The traditional test
‘The salmond test’ -in the course of employment. Only really covers negligence and not intentional torts or criminal acts.
A tort is deemed to be committed in the course of employment if:
1- a wrongful act authorised by the master
OR
2- a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master.
Application of ‘salmond test’
LIMPUS V LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS CO (1862)
A bus company liable for the actions of one of their drivers who raced other buses even though he was expressly prohibited from doing so. It was the way that he drove that was unauthorised.
Application of ‘salmond test’
CENTURY INSURANCE CO LTD (1942)
An employee, a petrol tank driver, threw away a lighted match whilst unloading his tanker that caused a fire. Employers liable for employees negligence as he was doing his job at the time of the incident, it was just an improper mode of doing it.
Application of ‘salmond test’
ROSE V PLENTY (1976)
Employers prohibited employees from carrying boys on their milk floats. However,many boy was injured whilst being carried on one due to the negligence of the employee. Employers liable as the prohibition had not affected the course of his employment. It was an improper mode of carrying out an unauthorised act.
Intentional torts and criminal acts.
WARREN V HENLEYS LTD (1948)
Employed as a pump attendant at a garage by the defendants. He accused a customer of about to drive away without paying. Customer threatened to report him to his boss so he punched him. Was an cat of personal vengeance and outside the course of employment so defendants not liable.
Intentional torts and criminal acts
POLAND V JON PARR AND SONS (1927)
Employee struck and caused serious injury to a boy whom he honestly believed (difference to warren case) was stealing sugar from his employers wagon. Employee in course of business so D liable. The honest attempt to protect the business (benefits the business) is more likely to bring an employee in the scope of employment.
The new test.
‘The lister test’ - is the tort closely connected with their employment?
There are three things to consider:
1- what was expected during the course of employment?
2- is there a close connection to the employment ( got to be more than a mere opportunity).
3 - is it fair and just to impose vicarious liability on the employer?
LISTER V HESLEY HALL LTD (2002)
Warden of a boarding school sexually assaulted the children that lived there. This was no an unauthorised method of doing something authorised by his employers as it was the opposite of what he was employed to do. Employers liable as the acts were closely connected with his employment.
Application of the ‘lister test’
MATTIS V POLLACK (2003)
M claimed for damages against p for a knife attack by Cranston(doorman). He had been employed to keep order and p encouraged him to do this in an aggressive and intimidatory manner. Liability established as lister test fulfilled. (No. 1)
Application of the ‘lister test’
MAGA V TRUSTEES OF BIRMINGHAM OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (2010)
Assistant priest sexually abused C when he was a young boy. Not liable as the assault were not closely connected as his job was to draw persons in to the church and this was not what he was trying to do therefore it would not be fair and just to hold the church liable.
Application of the ‘lister test’
WALLBANK V WALLBANK FOX DESIGNS (2012)
NEED TO REREAD THE FACTS FOR THIS CASE!!!!
Employee placed hands on employers face and threw him across the room whilst assisting him to load up some more bed frames because he was ‘not a wholly
NEED TO REREAD THE FACTS FOR THIS CASE!!!!
Application of the ‘lister test’
MOHAMUD V WM MORRISON SUPERMARKET PLC (2014)
Appellant entered the the respondents petrol station kiosk and asked employ e if he could print off some documents from a USB stick for him. Employee responded using racist language. When appellant left, employee followed him on to the forecourt of petrol station and beat him. His supervisor had told him not to follow appellant out and urged him to go back inside.
An appeal will only succeed if the lister criteria is met.
Conclusion
Where vicarious liability is imposed on an employer both the employer and employee will be held jointly liable. This operates to allow the employer to claim a contribution from the employee under the Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978.
It is clear that vicarious liability will continue to operate significantly for an employee’s acts committed within the ‘course of employment’. However the case of lister has expanded the approach taken by the courts in determining the circumstances for the applicability of vacarious liability and has broadened the extent of the ‘in the course of employment’ criteria.
Introduction
Vacarious liability defines the circumstances in which liability of an employer for the torts of his employer during the course of employment. It is not necessary in such circumstances for the employer for the employer to have breached any duty that was owed and therefore it operates as strict or no-fault liability.
