Vicarious liability Flashcards
what three things must a claimant show for vicarious liability?
employee must commit a tort
tortfeasor must be an employee or akin to employment
tort must have been committed during the course of employment
non intentional tort
Limpus v London general omnibus
century insurance v northern Ireland transport board
Rose v plenty
Barclays Bank
there must be a relationship between 2 persons which makes it proper the law to make one pay for the other
there must be a connection between that relationship and the tortfeasors wrongdoings
intentional tort
Mattis v Pollock
lister v Hesley Hall
Rose v Plenty
doing something told not to do but employer still liable as the action assisted the employer
(tort benefitted the employer)
Mattis v Pollock
non-fatal offences - gbh
lister v Hesley hall
sexual offences
What three tests are used to determine liability?
Control test
integration test
economic reality test
Control test
an independent contractor was someone who was told only what to do but not how to do it
Walker v crystal palace
Mersey v Coggins
walker v crystal palace
footballer plays for the club, the club paid him and housed him. player didn’t want to play according to their rules
court held he was under a contact of service - housed him
integrated test
the more closely a worker is involved with the core business of the employer, the more likely he is to be an employee.
Cox v Ministry of justice
Mrs Cox was the catering manager. During a negligent incident, a prisoner dropped a bag of rice on the claimant’s back causing injury. The claimant sought an action against the Ministry of Justice upon the basis that they were vicariously liable for the acts of the prisoner
economic reality test
court weighs up the two sets of factors and decide which outweighs the other
Ready mix concrete v minister of pensions
court weighed up factors to hold the driver was an independent contractor
Akin to employment
Christian Brothers test:
The organisation is more likely than the individual to have the means to compensate the victims.
The individual committed the act as a result of activity it undertook on behalf of the organisation.
The individual’s activity was likely to be part of the organisation’s business activity.
The organisation created the risk of the act being committed by the individual
The individual was, to a greater or lesser degree, under the control of the organisation.
Salmond test
non-intentional torts
a tort will be committed in the course of employment if part of the course of employment was authorised
Poland v parr
expressly or implied authorised acts
limpus v London general omnibus
authorised act in an unauthorised manner
driving in a way he was expressly told not to
Century insurance v NITB
authorised act in a purely careless manner
When will the salmond test not apply?
Activities within the general scope of employment - beard v london general omnibus
a frolic of his own - storey v ashton
giving unauthorised lift - Twine v beans express
close connections test
intentional torts
where there is a link between what the employee was employed to do and the employee’s conduct - Lister v Hesley Hall.
What two things are asked in the close connections test?
What was the field of activities entrusted by the employer to the employee?
Was there a sufficient connection between the position they were employed to carry out and the wrongful act - Mohamud v morrisons
