Vicarious Liability

Question 1

What is the first thing to prove for VL

Answer 1

1. A tort must be committed by the tortfeasor(employee)
   Non -Intentional- Negligence Limpus v London General Omnibus
   Intentional - Trespass to person Mattis v Pollock

Question 2

What is the second thing to prove for VL and what is the first thing for establishing this

Answer 2

2. The tortfeasor must be a employee or in a position akin to to an employee
   Barclays bank v Various states
3. Must be a relationship between the 2 persons which makes it proper for the law to make one pay for fault of the other
4. Must be a connection between the relationship and tortfeasors wrongdoing

Question 3

What are the traditional tests for establishing employee status

Answer 3

Control test- determine if employer had control what the employee did and way it was done - Walker v Crystal Palace
Integration Test- How closely a worker is involved with core business of employer Cox v MOJ
Economic reality- various factors indicate( salary, equipment, tax) Ready mix concrete v MOP

Question 4

If ambiguous what test do we use

Answer 4

Akin to employment test CBC approved in Armes v Nottingham CC
1. Employer more likely to have means to compensate victim and can be expected to be insured against that liability
2. Act will have been committed as a result of activity being taken by employee on behalf of employer
3. Employees activity likely to be part of business activity of employer
4. Employer by employing employee to carry out the activity will have created risk of the act being committed by employee
5. Employee will to a greater or a lesser degree have been under the control of employer

Question 5

What is the final element to prove for VL

Answer 5

The tort must occur in course of employment- establish whether there was an intentional or non-intentional tort

Question 6

What is the Salmond test

Answer 6

Non intentional torts
Where tort falls in course of employment
1. Authorised acts- Poland v Parr
2. Authorised act in unauthorised manner Limpus v London General Omnibus
3. Authorised act in a purely careless manner Century insurance v NI transport board
4. Employer benefits from the tort Rose v Plenty
Where tort is not within course of employment
1. Employees acts not in scope of employment Beard v London General Omnibus
2. Employee on frolic of his own Storey v Ashton
3. Giving unauthorised lifts Twine v Beans express

Question 7

What is the close connection test

Answer 7

Intentional torts- where there is a link between what the employee was employed to do and employees conduct- Lister v Helsey Hall
CBC said to ask 2 things
1. What was the nature of the employees job
2. Was there sufficient connection between position they were employed to carry out and the wrongful act which makes it right for the employer to be held liable Mohamud v Morrisons