vicarious liability Flashcards
main purpose of VL
ensure V receives compensation
what is VL
where one person is liable for a tort committed by another
what is it a form of
strict liability
first part of the 2 stage test
relationship between the D and C is one of employment or akin to employment
second part to the 2 stage test
close connection between the wrongful conduct and acts C was authorised to do
2 differences to consider between employee and IC
- employee= contract of employment IC= self-employed
- E= contract of service IC= contract for service
case for IC
Barclays Bank v various C
Barclays Bank v various C facts
VL does not apply to IC
doctor carrying out medical assessments for BB was an IC as he had a portfolio of clients, and free to refuse BB requests
3 tests for employee status
control
integration
economic reality
control test
ability to control the way a job is done
employee told what to do and how
IC only told what to do
case for control test
Mersey docks v Coggins
Mersey docks v Coggins facts
driver of crane was employee as the board had the power to tell him the way in which his work is carried, paid him, could sack him
integration test
worker is an employee if his work is fully integrated into the business
if a person’s work is only an accessory to the business are they an employee
no
case for integration test
Stevenson v Macdonald
economic reality test case
ready mixed concrete v minister if pensions
ready mixed concrete v minister if pensions facts
lorry drivers
- wore a uniform
- followed instructions
- IC as they owned their lorries responsible for repairs
ready mixed concrete 3 factors decided need to exist
- employee provides work in return for wage
- employee subject to control of employer
- other considerations in contract are consistent w there being a contract of employment
can more than one employer be VL and case
yes, Viasystems v Thermal
akin to employment test for non traditional employment relationships
VL if relationship is sufficiently akin to employment by considering the details of the relationship
case for akin to employment
catholic child welfare v various claimants
catholic child welfare v various claimants facts
abused by teachers at school who were members of a religious org
catholic child welfare v various claimants SC held
not a formal contract but institutes relationship w its members was sufficiently akin to one of employment
based on hierarchical structure, direct what was taught, importance, bound by rules
also sufficiently close connection as abuse was carried out whilst providing an education
Barry Jehovahs witnesses v BXB issue
whether relationship between the org and church elder was akin to employment
Barry Jehovahs witnesses v BXB decisions
as an elder he was carrying out work on behalf of them, furthered their aims, appointment process and hierarchical structure
close connection test
wrongful act must be so closely connected w acts that they were authorised to do that it can be regarded as acting in the course of employment
sufficiently close connection
employee acting negligently
if an employee does their job badly employer can be liable for their actions which cause damage
employee acting negligently case
Century insurance v northern island
Century insurance v northern island facts
employer VL for explosion that resulted as driver carried out the task he was employed to do even in a negligent way
acting against orders
if an employee is doing their job but acts against orders and employer can still be VL if actions further business
acting against orders case
limpus v London general omnibus
limpus v London general omnibus facts
instructed not to race, they did and caused an accident
VL as driver was acting for the employers business, the fact that it was in a forbidden way was irrelevant
case for when acting in the course of employment in a negligent way but it furthers the business
Rose v plenty
employer benefitted from work undertaken by the boy
employee acting on a frolic of their own
causes injury to another while doing something nothing to do w their employment or at time or place outside work, not VL
case employee acting on frolic of their own
Hilton v Thomas Burton
Hilton v Thomas Burton facts
workers took an authorised break
employer not liable for the negligent driving since they were on a frolic of their own
is travelling to and from work in the course of employment
no but travelling between workplaces the employer may be VL
case for travelling between work
Smith v stages
Smith v stages facts
driving back to work
VL as he was acting in house of employment as he was being paid during this travelling time
criminal actions of an employee
trespass to the person, employer may e liable if there is a close connection between the crime and the acts the employee is authorised to do
case for criminal actions
lister v hesley hall
lister v hesley hall facts
employer Vl for abuse as the acts were closely connected w his employment so it was fair and just
what did the SC decide about when the CC test will not be satisfied
won’t be satisfied just bc it provides D an opportunity to commit a wrongful conduct
case for CC not satisfied just bc it provides opportunity
Barry congregation v BXB
Barry congregation v BXB facts (CC)
he abused his friendship rather than any church responsibility so not VL
