vicarious liability Flashcards
what are the two conditions an employer will be liable for the tort of his employees
- if the worker is an employee under a contract of service
- if the tort is committed in the course of employees employment
element 1
an employee is under a contract of service
what test does the court favour to use for deciding if worker is an employee
economic reality test
give examples of tests that the courts developed to decided whether a worker is an employee
- control test
- integration test
what case was economic reality test established in
ready mixed concrete
condition one of economic reality test
worker provides a skill in return for a wage/salary
condition two of economic reality test
worker agrees to employer having control through:
- uniform
- giving holiday hours
- making sure you arrive on time
condition three of economic reality test
all other factors are consistent with there being a contract of service
what are some relevant factors
- tax and insurance
- self-description
- ownership of tools
element 2
tort is committed during the course of employment
what do courts recognise when dealing if an employer will be liable for employees wrongful act
- if the employer expressly or impliedly authorised it
- if employer authorised it but it was done in an unauthorised way
employee is doing an authorised act task but does something which has been expressly forbidden by his employer
limpus v LGOC
the employee is doing an authorised task but does the work in a negligent way
Century insurance co
close connection between what employee did and what they were employed to do
- lister v hesley hall
- Mohamud v Morrison
employers are not liable if the employee is acting on a frolic of his own
beard v LGOC
journeys where the employee is being paid may be within the course of employment
smith v stages
taking a detour for your own benefit may be in the course of employment
storey v ashton
what are the case facts of limpus v LGOC
- drivers were forbidden to race their buses
- However, the driver still raced his bus, resulting in an accident
- The employer was liable as the driver was doing what he was authorized to do, but in an unauthorized manner
what are the case facts of Century Insurance CO
the driver lit a cigarette while moving petrol. He threw the match away which caused an explosion. The HoL held that the driver was acting in the course of his employment, as part of his job was to wait while the petrol was being transferred
what are the case facts of smith v stages
an employee was injured whilst driving home due to another employee’s negligent driving. The employee was acting during his employment as his wages covered his work time.
what are the case facts of storey v Ashton
- a wine merchant went out to deliver some wine but ran over the claimant while taking a detour
- the court held that the employee was not vicariously liable as he wasn’t on the employer’s business at the time and was acting on a frolic of his own.
what are the case facts of Beard v LGOC
a bus driver drove a bus despite strict instructions not to and injured someone. The employer wasn’t liable as the driver wasn’t carrying out his own work but something outside of his employment as he wasn’t authorized to drive the buses.
