Vicarious LIability Flashcards
What is vicarious liability?
Where one person is made jointly liable for a tort committed by another
What are justifications for vicarious liability?
- It ensures the victim has a means of gaining damages as an employer will be in a better financial position
- the employer makes profit from the employee so they should bear the risk of potential liability arising from them
- employer’s will take more precautions to help prevent liability
- the employer should train the employee effectively to prevent liability
What three things have to be proved to make an employer vicariously liable?
- The act or omission must be a tort
- the person who committed the tort must be an employee
- the employee must have committed the tort in the course of his employment or in circumstances closely connected to his employment
What are the three tests used to decide if the tort was committed by an employee?
Control test, integration test and economic reality test
What is the control test?
A worker is an employee when someone controls what a person does and the way in which it is done
What case corresponds with the control test?
MERSEY DOCKS V COGGINS LTD
What does the case MERSEY DOCKS V COGGINS LTD say about the control test?
The control test is useful where workers have been lent to another
What happened in MERSEY DOCKS V COGGINS LTD?
A crane driver was lent by Mersey Docks to a stevedore company. The crane driver negligently injured someone but the court held that he was an employee of Mersey Docks and not the stevedore company as they weren’t telling him how to operate the crane
What is the integration test?
Someone whose work is fully integrated into the business will be an employee
Which case established the economic reality test?
READY MIX CONCRETE V MINISTER OF PENSIONS
What is the economic reality test?
A modern test which takes into account all the factors in the relationship in order to identify the status of the worker
What are examples of factors used in the economic reality test?
An employee is unlikely to own the equipment they use, has NI tax deducted by the employer and receive regular payments
What does the case CARMICHAEL V NATIONAL POWER say about being an employee?
Casual workers are usually viewed as independent contractors rather than employees
What does the case NETHERMERE LTD V TAVERNA say about employees?
Outworkers are employees
What does the POLICE ACT 1996 state about police employees?
The chief officer of police for an area will be vicariously liable for any tort committed by his officers
What does the case CENTURY INSURANCE V NORTHERN IRELAND TRANSPORT say about the course of employment?
An employer will be vicariously liable for an authorised act done in an unauthorised way
What does the case SMITH V STAGES say about the course of employment?
An employee travelling to and from a place of work is not regarded as being within the course of employment unless travel is closely connected with his work
What happened in SMITH V STAGES?
An employee had been working away from his usual work place and was involved in a road accident and the court decided it was still in the course of his employment as the employer had in effect directed him to make the journey
When will travel not be within the course of employment even if travel is the essence of the job?
When a detour is made and the employee is on a ‘frolic of his own’ and the detour has nothing to do with the employer’s business
What does the case LCC V CATTERMOLES (GARAGES) LTD say about the course of employment?
An employer can still be vicariously liable where an employee does an expressly forbidden act, if the ban only affects the manner in which the employee is to perform his duties
What happened in LCC V CATTERMOLES (GARAGES) LTD?
The employee was employed to move vehicles in a garage but was expressly forbidden to drive them. The court held that he was acting within the course of his employment when he drove a van out of the garage to make space for another and collided with another car
What does the case POLAND V JOHN PARR & SONS say about the course of employment?
When employees act in ways where there is implied authority to act, the employer will be vicariously liable
What does the case MAKANJUOLA V MET POLICE COMMISSIONER say about the course of employment?
An employer will not be vicariously liable for a tort arising out of conduct unconnected with the employer’s work
What does the case MOHAMUD V WM MORRISON SUPERMARKETS say about the course of employment?
If the employees conduct is not in the employer’s interests but it was so closely connected to the nature of his employment then the employer will still be vicariously liable
When will a person be vicariously liable for the torts committed by an independent contractor according to the case ELLIS V SHEFFIELD GAS?
If the contractor was authorised to carry out the tort
What does the case ORMROD V CROSVILLE MOTOR SERVICES say about a person being vicariously liable for an independent contractor?
An owner of a vehicle is vicariously liable if his employee drives it negligently in the course of his employment
