Vicarious Liability

Question 1

What is the first step of Vicarious Liability?

Answer 1

Looking at if a tort has been committed

Question 2

What connections must be made first (including case)?

Answer 2

Barclays bank
1. there is a relationship between the two people making it proper for one to pay the other (is there a contract of employment)
2.There must be a connection of the relationship and the tortfeasor’s wrongdoing.

Question 3

what does is mean if there is a contact of employment - employee

Answer 3

possibly liable

Question 4

what does it mean if they are an independent contractor?

Answer 4

Not responsible

Question 5

What does it mean if the employment is ambiguous?

Answer 5

Akin to employment

Question 6

What are the 5 tests for akin to employment and the case

Answer 6

Christian brothers
1the employer is more likely to have means to compensate
2 the act was committed by the employee on behalf of the employer
3 activity is likely to be part of business activity
4 by employing the employee to carry out the activity they created the risk of the act being commited
5 the employee will be to a greater or lesser degree have been under the conroll of the employer

Question 7

What is the control test?

Answer 7

Hawley v Luminal Leisure
Walker v Crystal Palace
it held that an independent contractor was someone who was told only what to do whereas an employee was not only told what to do but how to do it.

Question 8

What is the integration test?

Answer 8

Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison Ltd v MacDonald and Evans
This test states that the more closely a worker is involved with the core business of the employer, the more likely he is to be an employee.

Question 9

What is the economic reality test?

Answer 9

Ready mix concrete- case
In cases where it is not clear whether the worker is an employee or independent contractor (because there are factors which suggest they could be either) the courts weigh up the two sets of factors and decide which set outweighs the other, almost like a pros and cons list

Question 10

what is the second part of Vicarious Liability?

Answer 10

the tort sufficiently closely connected to the employment

Question 11

If a non-intentional tort?

Answer 11

use Salmond test

Question 12

how does the Salmond test work?

Answer 12

If it is either a) a wrongful act authorised by the master or b) a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master

Question 13

example of case a wrongful act authorised by the master

Answer 13

Poland v Parr

Question 14

example of case a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master

Answer 14

Limpus v London General Omnibus

Question 15

example of a case where the tort was caused by acting carelessly

Answer 15

Century Insurance v NITB

Question 16

what is the case and rule when it comes to an employee trying to get vengeance?

Answer 16

WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants
acts done intentionally for vengeance will not be the responsibility of the employer

Question 17

what happens when there is an intentional tort?

Answer 17

must be so closely connected that they regarded as acting in the ordinary course of their employment.

Question 18

what is not successful in the Salmond test?

Answer 18

activities not within the scope of employment
A frolic of his own
Giving unauthorised lifts

Question 19

Activities not within the scope of employment case

Answer 19

Beard v London General Omnibus

Question 20

A frolic of his own case

Answer 20

Storey v Ashton

Question 21

Giving unauthorised lifts case

Answer 21

Twine v Beans Express

Question 22

can an employer still be liable even when the employee has left the station

Answer 22

Mohamud v WM Morrisons Supermarkets
It did not matter the reasons for the attack, his working duties did not simply stop just because he had left the counter
extends the scope of vicarious liability as it allows for it to be seen the employer may still be liable even when not directly working

Question 23

Is the employer liable when the employee leaves and comes back

Answer 23

Mattis v Pollock
The occupier was liable for the actions of the bouncer despite the tort being outside the club as it was just as violent as it would have been if it were inside or outside the club.