vicarious liability Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

vicarious liability is

A

a means of imposing liability on someone other than the tortfeasor, also known as the ‘‘man of straw’’ - you cant get money for a man of straw

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

three elements of VL

A
  1. was a tort committed?
  2. was the tortfeasor an employee?
  3. was the tort committed during the course of employment?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

was a tort committed?

A

Name the tart e.g. negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

was the tortfeasor an employee?

A

no VL for torts committed by an independent contractor
Barclays v Various claimants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Barclays v Various claimants

A

Barclays hired a doctor to conduct a medical exam and received a fee per exam. 126 claimants made allegations of serious sexual assault against the doctor. SC reversed decision of C of A due to the fact the doctor was paid for each client , he had other patients, he did it in his own name and had own medical insurance
INDEPEDANT CONTRACTOR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Traditionally 3 main tests;

A

> control test
the ‘integration’ test
the multiple test (currently the main test)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Multiple test
a person should be considered an employee if the following statements are satisfied;

A
  1. person agrees to provide work + skill for an employer in return for payment
  2. he or she agrees to be subject to employer control
  3. the terms of the contract are consistent with the existence of an employment contract
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what else is considered in the multiple test

A

> how is the tortfeasor paid
who pays tax and NIC
who decides working hours, responsible for sick pay and holiday pay
who provides tools and materials

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Ready mixed concrete

A

drivers used were independent contractor due to ownership of the lorries and risk of loss even though they had to wear uniform and it had to be company colours

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

‘employment like’ relationships
Cox v Ministry of Justice

A

ministry of justice were liable as the relationship between a prisoner and prison service was similar to that of an employer and employee
prison caterer killed when a prisoner dropped a bag of rice on her back

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

the cox test;

A
  1. was harm wrongfully done by a person whose activities are an integral part of Ds business + for the benefit of the business?
  2. was the risk of harm occurring caused by D assigning that activity to that person?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

sufficiently similar relationships

A

> church and priest
charity and volunteer worker
local council and foster parenyts `

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

JGE v Trustees of Plymouth

A

priest carried out sexual abuse of a child. Church argued there was no formal employment relationship.Court found that it was ‘‘sufficiently close to employment’’. The abuse was only possible due to his job role

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Was the tort committed during the course of the employment?

A

Joel v Morrison if the employee is on a ‘frolic of his own’ the employer will avoid liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Salmond test

A

'’in the course of employment vs frolic of his own’’
in the course of employment includes;
> a wrongful unauthorised act
>an authorised act in an unauthorised manner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Poland v parr

A

employee assaulted a boy who tried to steal from his employers wagon. Employer liable as it was in the course of employment and the employer instructed them to protect the wagon at all costs.

17
Q

authorised act in an unauthorised way

A

> Limpus v London Omnibus- a bus driver instructed not to race bases but did anyway. employer LIABLE as driver was in course of employment doing what he was employed to do.

> Beard v London Omnibus -bus conductor drove the bus + injured C. Employer NOT LIABLE, on a ‘‘frolic of his own’’ due to him doing something not employed to do

18
Q

Careless/negligent employee

A

Century Insurance v NI transport - Tanker driver employed to deliver petrol, lit a cigarette and caused an explosion. Employer LIABLE, in the course of employment. He was doing his employed job, even though negligently

19
Q

unauthorised lifts

A

> Rose v Plenty - milkman used 13yr old boy to help deliver milk despite instructions not too + the boy got injured. Employer LIABLE, in the course of employment as the employer benefitted from the work done by the boy

> Twine v Beans express - hitchiker killed through negligence of a driver who had been forbidden to give lifts. Employer NOT LIABLE, ‘‘frolic of his own’’ as he was unauthorised and employer gained no benefit

20
Q

The ‘close connection’ test

A

> Lister v Hesley Hall
Mattis v Pollock
Mohamud v Morisons
N v CCof west Merseyside
Uber v Aslam

21
Q

Lister v Hesley Hall

A

the warden of a school for children with emotional difficulties sexually assaulted some of the children.Employer was LIABLE.
HL stated that a employer will be VL ‘‘provided that there is a sufficiently close connection between the acts of the employee and the employment’’

22
Q

Mattis v Pollock

A

bouncer employed to keep order outside a night club inflicted serious injuries on a customer. Nightclub VL as he was encouraged to use force + be intimidating - actions closely connected with his work

23
Q

Key questions formulated in Mohamed v Morrisons

A

a man employed at Morisons petrol station assaulted a customer, causing serious injuries
1. what is the nature of the job entrusted to the tortfeasor?
2. is there a sufficient connection between the position in which the tortfeasor is employed and their wrongful conduct to make it right for employer to be liable?

24
Q

N v CC of west merseyside

A

off duty police officer offered to take a young women home from a club ho was beloved to be on drugs. He took her back to his house + raped her. No close connection between his conduct + his employment.
D had used his uniform to gain trust and abuse it

25
Q

Uber v Aslam

A

25 über drivers claimed, to the employment tribunal, that they were workers rather than self-employed + deserved to be paid minimum wait and paid leave