Vicarious Laibility Flashcards
It is not a tort which a claim be made why
such as with negligence but rather a legal method of imposing liability for a tort onto usually employers who have not committed the tortious act themselves
Where does vicarious liability applies
the employers will be liable to pay compensation even if they did not directly cause the accident and were not to blame themselves.
What does the burden of proof shift to
the burden shifts from one person to another
person who committed the tort to the person —-> person who has pay compensation
Why does the employer become liable
liable for as they have money more than the employee
What are the 4 justifications for imposing liability
Control
Discipline
Training
Compensation
What is control when justifying imposed liability
employers may have control over their employees and employees may be following their instructions when the tort happened. As a result, the employer should be responsible.
What is discipline when justifying imposed liability
employers are liable for hiring and disciplining their staff. They should be careful when hiring staff. Ultimately, employers can dismiss employees who will not follow correct procedures
What is training when justifying imposed liability
employers are responsible for training their employees to ensure they follow correct procedures and work safely.
What is compensation when justifying imposed liability
person injured as a result of a tort will want to claim compensation. Employers are in a better position to pay this compensation than employees. They will also have public liability to cover claims
What is the first part of the Salmond test
The tortfeasor commits an unintentional tort
What is the second part of the Salmond test
The person who committed the tort during his course of employment
What is the third part if the Salmond test
The employee committed the tort during his course of employment
What is first main page of imposing vicarious liability on employers
Person alleged to have committed the tort is, the facts, an employee
What is second main page of imposing vicarious liability on employers
it must be shown that the employee committed the alleged tort ‘ during the course of employment’
The main requirements must be what for applying VL
Must be satisfied in order for that
What cases link to the ‘control’ test
Yeowans v Noakes 1880
Hawley v Luminar leisure 2006
Whats happen in Yeowans v Noakes 1880
does the ‘master’ have the right to exercise control over the ‘servant’
What happen in Hawley v luminar leisure 2006
bouncer supplied to night club by another firm
bouncer assaulted a customer outsider the night club
Club found to be ‘in control’ oof what bouncer did and was therefore an employer
What did lord denning say about the integration test
‘a worker will be a employee if his work is fully integrated into the business rather than being an accessory to it’
Case link to integration test
stevenson Jordan & Harrison v McDonald & Ewan 1952
Held for stevenson Jordan & Harrison v McDonald & Ewan 1952
held that the engineer was the author of the work, but that specific material that he acquired whilst he was an employee fell within the Copyright Act 1911 and should be excluded from the publication.
What is the economic reality test
considers economic factors that would indicate a contract of employment
Case link for economic reality test
ready mixed concrete v minister of pensions
What happen in ready mixed concrete v minister of pensions
The employee agrees to provide work in return for a wage. Employee accepts that the work will be subject to the control of the employer.
Case link to recent development in law
JGE v Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic diocesan trust 2012
Held for JGE v Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic diocesan trust 2012
The relationship was sufficiently akin to that employment and the abuse took during the course if his catholic duties.
Held for Cox v Ministry of justice 2016
Employment need not be commercial so long as the accused has worked under the control of the organisation to the furtherance of its interests.
How can the employer be liable if an employee commits a crime doing their work
employer may be liable to the victim if there is a close connection between the crime and what the employee was employed to do.
Held for lister v Hensley hall 2001
vicarious liability may be imposed for illegal acts if they are so closely connected with the employee’s job as to make it fair to impose vicarious liability
What was the legal point for Mohamed v Morrisons supermarket 2016
The appeal was allowed “the close connection test that is firmly rooted in justice. It asks whether the employee’s tort is so closely connected with his employment as to make it just to hold the employer liable”
Why can more than one employer be liable VL
Who was entitled and obligated to control the tortfeasors acts- may lead to two employers
Case link to more than one employer can be liable for VL
viasystems v thermal transfer Ltd 2005
Held for viasystems v thermal transfer Ltd 2005
They both carried out the same work, thus D3’s labourer was also working for D2. meaning both D2 &D3 were liable- 50/50 damages
Case link to negligence act
Century insurance v NI road transport board 1942
What happen to century insurance v NI road transport board 1942
E lit a cigarette and thre it on the ground which caused an explosion
several cars were destroyed and nearby houses were damaged
held: employer liable
If a tortfeasor goes about their job but in such a way that is contrary to the orders of their employer who is liable?
The employer may be still liable, so long as the tortfeasor is undertaking his course of employment. ‘If the prohibition can be regarded as applying to the way in which the job is done
Case link to acting in an unauthorised manner- but doing what employer for
Limbus v London general omnibus Co. 1862
Held for limps v London general omnibus Co. 1862
The employer was liable for the ensuing accident dispute written instructions to the driver. The driver was doing what he was employed to do- even against orders
What is meant by Employees acting outside the course of their employment.
Where an employee acts outside of the terms of their employment then the employer will not be held liable
Case link to Employees acting outside the course of their employment.
beard v London general omnibus Co 1990
Held for beard v London general omnibus Co 1990
Employer NOT liable as the worker was acting outside the course of his employment
What happen if an employees commits criminal act - will the employer be liable
then the employer may be liable to the victim if there is a close connection between the crime and what them employee was employed to do
Case link to employees committing criminal act
Mohamud v Morrisons supermarkets 2016
What happen in mohamud v Morrisons supermarkets 2016
employees tort is so closely connected with his employment as to make it just to hold the employer liable
Facts to various claimants v Barclays Bank plc 2017
Claimants were seeking damage against Barclays bank. They had been abused by the medical practitioner who was conducting medicals prior to their appointment as employees of the bank. The doctor died in 2009, and therefore any claim against him personally was too late
Held for various claimants v Barclays Bank plc 2017
The claimants alleged that barclays bank was vicariously liable for the acts committed by the doctor
What is the first part of Whether or no vicarious liability existed in a particular case
Is the relevant relationship one of employment “akin to employment”
What is the second stage for Whether or no vicarious liability existed in a particular case
if so, was the tort sufficiently closely connected with that employment
What is the first criteria for the first stage to be satisfied
The defendant is more likely to have the means to compensate the victim than the tortfeasor
What is the second criteria for the first stage to be satisfied
Committed as a result of activity being taken by the employee on behalf of the employer
What is the third criteria for the first stage to be satisfied
The tortfeasor’s activity is likely to be a part of the business activity of the defendant.
What is the fourth criteria for the first stage to be satisfied
The employer, by employing the employee to carry out the activity, will have created the risk of the tort committed by the employee.
What is the fifth criteria for the first stage to be satisfied
The employee will, to a greater or lesser degree, have been under the control of the employer.
What court found about second stage of Whether or no vicarious liability existed in a particular case
found that the alleged sexual abuse was inextricably interwoven with the carrying by the doctor of his duties pursuant to his engagement by the bank.
What was held for Morrisons supermarket v various claimants 2020
Supreme Court held that the employers were not responsible for his actions as they were outside the scope of his employment. Sending the data was not something he was authorised to do.
What is meant by employees acting on a ‘frolic’ on their own
where an employee commits an act at a time or place not connected with his employment.
Case link to employees acting on a ‘frolic’ of their own
Hilton v Thomas burton 1961
Held for Hilton v Thomas burton 1961
Employer was NOT liable. Workers on a ‘frolic of their own’. Not course of employment
Held for smith v stages 1989
Employer WAS liable. Employee was being paid for travel as a part of his work.
Not frolic on their own
What meant by recovering money from employees
One way in which the perceived injustice of holding employees accountable for the negligent & criminal acts of their employees is recovering damages paid from them.
Employer may use what when recovering money from employees
use the civil liability (contribution) act 1978 to recover any compensation paid back from the employee by deducting it from wages.
Does liability apply to independent contractors
No as they don’t have employer
Self employed workers should have what
Have public liability insurance
What was held for Barclays Bank v various claimants 2020
court held that barclays were not liable for the acts of the doctor who assaulted patients. The 5 policy reasons are not the only thing to take into account.
Was the bank liable
The doctor was an independent contractor and bank not liable for his action
However, where the contractor is carrying out their own business there is no need to look at the 5 factors.
