Vicarious Liability

Question 1

Lister v Helsey Hall

Answer 1

-old definition
w/ Sir John Salmond 1907
-1st established close connection test

Question 2

Barclays Banks v Various Claimants

Answer 2

• defines vicarious liability as: arising where an employer is liable for the torts, and sometimes crimes, of their emloyees
• ind con & confirm akin test w lady hale & confirm close test

Question 3

JGE v Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust

Answer 3

(justs give em one haha)

‘akin to employment’ test set out here, where there is doubt as to whether the tortfeasor is an employee

Question 4

Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society

Answer 4

set out ‘akin to employment’ Lord P set 5 criteria for fair, just and reasonable:

1) means to compensate w/ insurance
2) greater/lesser degree under ds control
3) business related activity
4) undertaken on es behalf
5) risk created by employing TF

Question 5

Cox v Ministry of Justice

Answer 5

akin to employment test confirmed & focus on 3,4,5

MJ confirm d

Question 6

Armes v Notts CC

Answer 6

lady hale clarified each case should be judged seperately on own facts

Question 7

Barclays Bank v Various Claimants (2)

Answer 7

employers not vicariously liable for torts of an independent contractor

Question 8

Viasystems v Thermal Transfer

Answer 8

responsibility for the actions of an employee can be shared by <1 employer
(dads work tt)

Question 9

VC v CCWS / A v N CC / BB v VC / Mohamud v Morrisons Supermarkets / Morrisons Supermarkets v VC

Answer 9

‘close/sufficient connection’ test

1) what was the nature of his job
2) sufficient connection between his position and wrongful conduct, to make right for the employer to be held liable under p of sj

Question 10

Poland v Parr

Answer 10

employer will be vicariously liable for an ‘authorised act’

authorised ww2

Question 11

Rose v Plenty

Answer 11

or an ‘unauthorised act’, if employer benefits from the tort

plenty of benefits

Question 12

Limpus v London General Omnibus

Answer 12

‘unauthorised act’ if employee is actually doing their job

racing lmao

Question 13

Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport

Answer 13

may even be liable for purely careless acts, when employee is doing their job
(purely careless troubles)

Question 14

Twine v Beans Express / Beard v London General Omnibus

Answer 14

beyond scope of employment: an unauthorised act that did not benefit the employer
(benefit beans beard)

Question 15

Hilton v Thomas Burton

Answer 15

beyond scope: employee is ‘on a frolic of their own’ by doing something outside the time/area of their work
(tim burton is on a frolic)