Vicarious Liability Flashcards
What is vicarious liability ?
Vicarious liability is when a person will be liable for the torts of another
What is a tortfeasor?
tHIS IS THE PERSON WHO HAS COMMITTED THE TORT ie the employee
Who is the defendant ?
The defendant is the employee, the person who will be held liable for the actions of the employee
What are the three steps to vicarious liability ?
- Establish that the tortfeasor was an employe of the defendant
- Establish that the Tortfeasor committed the tort eg T committed a potential … Negligence
- /.
Explain the tests under the first part of vicarious liability
- Control test - the more control d has over how the tortfeasor works the more likely the T is an employee
Explain the second test that can be used to establish who the employee is
What is the case that has established the control test ?
Yewen v Noakes- this is the idea that considers whether the employer has control the nature of work done
- Walker v Crystal palace football club - Established that a footballer is an employee
What is the case that establishes that it is possible for more than on employer to be vicariously liable
Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer
What is the second test that can be used to establish if a person is an employee ?
The organisational/; integral test
Explain what the integral; test is
The integral test asks the question is the person an integral part of the business or an accessory
- This relies on the distinction between a contract of service and a contract for service
What cases can be used to establish the integral test ?
Stevenson , Jordan and harrison ltd v Macdonald and evans
Who mentioned that an employee is someone who is integral to the business ?
Lord denning
What is the economic reality test and what are the three factors that may indicate employment ?
This is a modern test that considers many factors that has been established in the case of Ready Mixed Concreate ltd v minister of pensions and national insurance
- agree to a particular wage
- Controlled by the employer and agreed submission
- If the employer deducts tax and national insurance than the tortfeasor is a employee
-
What case establishes three factors that can be used to indicate employment
- Ready Mixed Concreate ltd v Minister of pensions and national insurance
What else does the third condition of the ready mixed concreate v minister of pensions and national insurance cover ?
- The method of payments
- Working hours
- The level of independence of the employee or the independent contractor
- The relative responsibility for providing equipment
What case can demonstrate the economic reality test ?
- Express v echo v tanton
Why are recent developments in case law significant to vicarious liability ?
Because - it develops ideas on who is an employee that is much more relevant to todays society for example the 2021 ber case established that uber drivers are employees of uber . Other examples include:
- Mohamud v wm morrison 2018 reinforced the idea of a relationship of akin which means close relationship between employment
- The catholic church child welfare society v various claimants fc 2012 reinforced the idea of a relationship of akin
What is meant by the course of employment ?
This means that an employer may not be responsible/ liable for the torts caused by the employee, when the empoyee is going beyond the scope of employment
What test can be used deciding if a tort has been committed by an employee during the course of employment?
The salmond test - this is the traditional test for deciding if a tort has been committed in the course of employment
What are the elements of the salmond test ?
a tort is committed in the course of employment if it is an:
a) a wrongful act authorised by the master
b) a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing an act by the master
What is an authorised act ?
An authorised act is where the employer will be liable if the employee acts beyond the scope of employment
eg Beard v london online onmibus - there was no liability
What case can be used as an example of an authorised act
Beard v London Onmibus ( no liability because employee went beyond the scope of employment
What is an Authorised act in an unauthorised manner?
This is the idea that an employer is vicariously liable when the employee does in an authorised act in an unauthorised matter eg century insurance v northern ireland road transport
When is the employer not vicariously liable regarding an authorised act done in an unauthorised act ?
When the employee is acting beyond the scope of his employment eg the case of iqbal v london transport executive
What is meant by doing authorised work in a forbidden manner \?
This means that an employer may still be liable even if the act is done in a forbidden manner eg the case of lipus v London general omnibus - he was liable because he was acting in the scope of his employment
What cases can be used for showing that an employer may still be liable for the an authorised act done in an unauthorised manner ?
Limpus v london general Omnibus - liability because employee was acting within there job role
- Rose v plenty
What is meant by a folic of his own ?
This means that an employee will not be for the torts committed by an employee who is on a frolic of his won which means doing work that is not linked to his job role
What is an example case for a frolic of his own ?
Storey v ashton - this is where the employer was not liable for the torts committed by his employee because he did something that was not business related.
What is the salmond test ?
- this is a test that establishes if a tort was committed in the course of employment
1. this asks the question, was the employer benefiting from the act ?
2. is the act unlawful
What does the case of Lister and others v hesley ltdf suggest ?
- The case of lister is the starting point for close connection between employment and actions of employees
Is travelling to work considered to be in the course of employment
yes - when they are travelling between sites during work hours but if they de route then the employer will not be liable eg in conway v wimpey- no liability and smith v stages where there was liability
What cases can be used when discussing travelling as in the course of employment?
- Comway v wimpey- No liability -
- Smith v stages - liability
