Vicarious Liability Flashcards
What is the definition of VL?
Where D is held liable for a tort they did not commit due to their relationship with T (the tortfeasor)
When does VL apply?
When there is a relationship akin to that of employer and employee.
What are the 2 stages to VL?
- T must be employed by D
2. T must have been acting in the ‘course of employment’ when committing the tort.
What is the test to work out if T was employed by D?
Economic Reality Test:
Set out in Ready Mixed Concrete v MoP.
There are multiple factors to be considered, such as if T was under the control of D, received a regular wage, of they control their hours and if they own the equipment.
What does Mersey Docks v CG show?
When an employee is lent to another employer, it is assumed that the permanent employer will remain vicariously liable, unless the contrary con be proven.
What does Hawley v Luminar Leisure show?
The temporary employer exercised a lot of control over the employee, meaning that they were vicariously liable, not the permanent employer.
What does Barclays show?
Where it is unclear if the T was employed by D, we should look at the details of the relationship and use the test from Cox v MoJ.
What does Cox v MoJ show?
A relationship other than one of employment can give rise to vicarious liabilities where:
- T’s work only benefits the business (the work is integral)
- If D created a risk of harm by giving T that work.
What does the ‘course of employment’ mean?
It can mean 1 of 2 things:
- The wrongful act was authorized by the employer.
- The wrongful act was unauthorized but the act was so closely connected to their authorized work.
What does Morrisons show?
To work out the work work T has done is closely related, we should look at what T was employed to do. what they did and if it was fair to say the tort is part of their ordinary business or if they were acting for personal reasons.
What does Mohamud show?
A crime may be closely connected to authorized tasks if done on work premises and for work reasons.
What does N v CC of Merseyside show?
T committed a criminal act but it was not work related and so D was not vicariously liable.
What does Twine v Beans Express show?
T committed a non-criminal act and D was not vicariously liable as T was not doing his job, he was on a ‘frolic of his own’.
What does Rose v Plenty show?
D was vicariously liable for T’s non-criminal act as work was being done and D benefitted from the activity.
