Vicarious liability Flashcards

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

what three things must a claimant show for vicarious liability?

A

employee must commit a tort
tortfeasor must be an employee or akin to employment
tort must have been committed during the course of employment

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

non intentional tort

A

Limpus v London general omnibus
century insurance v northern Ireland transport board
Rose v plenty

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

Barclays Bank

A

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

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

intentional tort

A

Mattis v Pollock
lister v Hesley Hall

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

Rose v Plenty

A

doing something told not to do but employer still liable as the action assisted the employer
(tort benefitted the employer)

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

Mattis v Pollock

A

non-fatal offences - gbh

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

lister v Hesley hall

A

sexual offences

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

What three tests are used to determine liability?

A

Control test
integration test
economic reality test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Control test

A

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

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

walker v crystal palace

A

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

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

integrated test

A

the more closely a worker is involved with the core business of the employer, the more likely he is to be an employee.

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

Cox v Ministry of justice

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

economic reality test

A

court weighs up the two sets of factors and decide which outweighs the other

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

Ready mix concrete v minister of pensions

A

court weighed up factors to hold the driver was an independent contractor

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

Akin to employment

A

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.

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

Salmond test

A

non-intentional torts
a tort will be committed in the course of employment if part of the course of employment was authorised

16
Q

Poland v parr

A

expressly or implied authorised acts

16
Q

limpus v London general omnibus

A

authorised act in an unauthorised manner
driving in a way he was expressly told not to

17
Q

Century insurance v NITB

A

authorised act in a purely careless manner

18
Q

When will the salmond test not apply?

A

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

19
Q

close connections test

A

intentional torts
where there is a link between what the employee was employed to do and the employee’s conduct - Lister v Hesley Hall.

20
Q

What two things are asked in the close connections test?

A

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