vicarious liability Flashcards
how is vicarious liability different from individual torts
it is not a tort in itself but a way to impose liability for a tort onto another body separate from the person that actually committed the tort
what is the person who causes the tort called
tortfeaser
what are the three crucial aspects that must be proven for vicarious liability
1) was the tortfeasor an employee
2) was the tort committed during the course of their employment
3) was the act or omission a tort
how will an employer avoid liability
disprove relationship of employment with tortfeaser
what is a case for the control test
Hawley, a bouncer who was supplied to a club by an agency assaulted a customer outside the club. The issue was whether the club or the agency was vicariously liable for the bouncers actions. The club was liable because they exercised so much control over the bouncer at that point that they virtually employed him.
what are two tests for establishing employment
control test, economic reality test
what are three aspects of the economic reality test
1) employee agrees to provide work in return for a wage
2) employee expressly or impliedly accepts that work will be subject to the control of employer
3) all other considerations in the contract are consistent with the relationship being one of employment rather than anything else
what is a case for the economic reality
ready mixed concrete LTD. Case involved who was liable for national insurance contributions. drivers drove vehicles in company colours with company logos and could only drive these vehicles in working hours. The economic reality was that they were employed
what three thing did a particular person suggest for torts in the course of employment and who was the person
salmon suggested employers will be liable when
1) a wrongful act is authorised by the employer
2) an act that you are employed to do but do in an unauthorised way
3) acting purely in a careless way
what is a case for employers authorising wrongful acts
poland, the tortfeaser assaulted a boy who was trying to steal something from his employer’s van. There was vicarious liability because the tortfeasor was just protecting his employers property.
what are two cases for doing an authorised act in an unauthorised way
1) limpus, two bus drivers were racing and the claimant was injured from this. although they had been instructed not to race, the employer was still liable
2) plenty, a milkman gave a boy a lift on his milk cart even though he had been instructed not to do so, the boy was injured and made a claim. The employers were liable because they were benefiting from the work being undertaken by the boy.
what is a case for pure carelessness
northern ireland transport board, the tortfeaser was delivering petrol to a petrol station when he carelessly threw down a match, causing a fire. The employer was liable for the negligence of his employer
when will the employer not be liable
when the tort was committed outside of the tortfeasors course of employment or when the tortfeasor was on a ‘frolic of his own’
what is a case when the tortfeasor was not in the course of their employment
beard, bus driver drove bus despite express orders to do the contrary. C was injured. The employers were not liable because the bus driver was completing his own work, unrelated to the company.
what is a case for a frolic of their own
Hilton, workmen took an authorised break and left their place of work. one employee who was driving the van crashed and killed somebody. The employer was not liable since they were on a frolic of their own.
what test have the courts developed for establishing employment
close connection test. was the relationship ‘akin to employment’ and was the tort ‘closely connected to his employment.
what is the case involving unauthorised lifts
Twine, the employers were not liable for injuries attained by the claimant during one of their employees giving an unauthorised lift.
what is a case for close connection
mattis, bouncer employed by a nightclub stabbed claimant after a fight. The employer was liable because the bouncer’s actions were closely connected to what his employer expected as he was supposed to manhandle and intimidate customers
case involving the catholic chruch
Maga, the church was held liable for the sexual abuse inflicted on the claimant by one of the priests employed. The nature of the role played by the priest gave the opportunity to engage in abusive activities.
case involving the catholic chruch
Maga, the church was held liable for the sexual abuse inflicted on the claimant by one of the priests employed. The nature of the role played by the priest gave the opportunity to engage in abusive activities.
what is the case involving a police officer and rape
N, the defendant parked his car outside a nightclub, wearing his uniform even though he was off duty and offered to take a young woman to the station as she was very drunk. The defendant then raped the woman. courts held that there was no close connection between the employment and the assaults
what have the courts said on liability for the acts of independent contractors and what is a case for this
employers will not usually be liable for the acts of independent contractors because of the lack of control that the employer is able to exercise. the case of barclays bank involved an independent doctor who barclays directed clients to sexually assaulting these clients. Barclays were not liable
