Vicarious Liability

Question 1

Barclays Bank v Various Claimants (2020)

Answer 1

VICARIOUS:
Barclays paid a doctor to examine their employees. The doctor then died and it came out that there were sexual misconduct allegations. So they sued the bank. Court held that the doctor was an Independent contractor so the bank was not liable. The only time an IC is liable is when their work is “Akin to employment”.

Question 2

Armes v Notts CC (2017)

Answer 2

CONTROL TEST:
Armes was placed into foster care by Notts county council. The foster parents were abusive and Armes took a claim against the council. The council were held vicariously liable as they chose the foster parents.

Question 3

Uber v Aslam (2021)

Answer 3

CONTROL TEST:
Uber drivers are classed as employees and not contractors. Uber has too much control over the drivers thus they are classed as employees.

Question 4

Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd (1947)

Answer 4

EMPLOYEES OF LOAN:
A crane driver was out on loan by his employee to another company. The original company was liable for any tort that the employee committed on loan.

Question 5

Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society (2012)

Answer 5

AKIN TO EMPLOYMENT:
A catholic school brought in priests to lecture the children and they ended up sexually abusing the children. They were not actually employees but their work was still “Akin to employment” so the school was still liable.

Question 6

Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board (1942)

Answer 6

NOT IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT:
Employee of D drove a petrol lorry for them. Caused an explosion when he lit a cigarette and it exploded. Lighting a cigarette was outside the course of his employment so his employer was not liable.

Question 7

Limpus v London General Omnibus Co. (1862)

Answer 7

AUTHORISED ACT IN UNAUTHORISED WAY:
Bus drivers were told they were not to race any other buses. One of them did but the employer was still liable as the driver was doing an authorised act (Driving the bus) in an unauthorised way (Racing)

Question 8

Rose v Plenty (1976)

Answer 8

EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN BUT IS DONE FOR EMPLOYERS BENEFIT:
Employees were told not to hire children to distribute milk. When the child was damaged, the employer was liable as the act that the employee did was benefitting the employee.

Question 9

Heasmans v Clarity Cleaning (1987)

Answer 9

FROLIC OF HIS OWN:
A cleaner, employed to obviously clean the house, used C’s phone to make long phone calls costing £1500. Employer was not liable as the employee was off on a frolic of their own.

Question 10

Lister v Hesley Hall (2001)

Answer 10

CLOSELY CONNECTED TO EMPLOYMENT:
Pupils at a boarding school were sexually abused by the warden. The wardens work was very closely connected to employment so employer was liable.

Question 11

Morrisons v Various Claimants (2020)

Answer 11

CLOSELY CONNECTED TO EMPLOYMENT:
Mr Skelton of Morrisons held a grudge against the accounting team so he shared the personal and financial details of over 100,000 employees. Morrisons were not vicariously liable as the tort it not closely connected to employment.

Question 12

Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co. (1957)

Answer 12

EMPLOYER INDEMNITY:
Lister was a lorry driver who drove negligently and injured his father. He sued the company and they were found liable. In turn, the company sued Lister and claimed back all damages.