vicarious liability

Question 1

vl principle

Answer 1

• one party (usually employer) fixed with liability for the torts of another party (usually employee)

Question 2

main rules for imposing vl

Answer 2

the tortforseor commits a tort ( intentional tort/ crime or negligent tort)

the tortfeasor must be an employee, the tort must occur in the place of employment

Question 3

tests for determining employment status

Answer 3

• no single test -Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security.

conventional tests -

Control test: Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffiths.
Integration test: Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison v Macdonald & Evans.
Economic reality (multiple) test: Ready Mixed Concrete v MPNI.

Question 4

when is a tort considered to be in the course of an employment

Answer 4

• authorised acts- Poland v parr
• unauthorised manner of acting - limps v London general omnibus
• purely careless manner - century insurance v Northern Ireland transport board
• when the employer benefits from the tort- rose v plenty

Question 5

when is a tort considered outside the course of an employment

Answer 5

• employees activities are not within scope - beard v London general omnibus
• employee is on a frolic of their own - Hilton v Thomas Burton
• employee gives unauthorised lifts - twine v beans express

Question 6

what is meant by a relationship akin to employment

Answer 6

• the tortfeasor must be in a relationship akin to employment
• the tort must be a close connection to the role performed

Question 7

how is liability for intentional torts or crimes determined

Answer 7

• liability applies if a. close connection exists between the role and the wrongful conduct
• lister v helsey hall

Question 8

what is the close connection test for vl

Answer 8

-what actives were entrusted to the employee

• was there a sufficient connection between the role and the wrongful act to justify liability

Question 9

what principles were established in the catholic child welfare society case

Answer 9

• there must be a relationship akin to employement
• the tort must be connected to this relationship

Question 10

how is a relationship determined to be akin to employment in the Christian brothers case

Answer 10

• 5 critieras
• employer likely has means to compensate the claimant , expected to have insurance
• tort was committed as part of employers business activites
• tortfeasor activities benefits employer
• tort was committed under the employers control
• employer created the risk of the tort

Question 11

what principle was established in cox v ministry of justice

Answer 11

• employer doesn’t need to carry out actitivites for profit
• sufficient if the activities further their interests

Question 12

what decision was made in the Mohamud v Morrisons supermarket case

Answer 12

• close connected between tort ( assault) and the employment, as it occurred at the workplace during work hours

Question 13

what was the decision in the Armes v Nottingham county council case

Answer 13

• foster carers found to be sufficiently integrated into councils business activities , making council vl

Question 14

what were the 2018 and 2020 decision in the barclays bank case

Answer 14

• in 2018, the court of appeal found the bank liable for assault by a doctor under their control
• in 2020, the supreme court ruled the doctor was an indepenedent contractor = no vl

Question 15

unfairness to employers ao3

Answer 15

• employers may be liable despite not committing the tort/ having the opportunity to correct themselves
• liability often passed to insurance companies , minimises direct impact
• insurance premium increases are less costly than full compensation due to risk spreading by insurers

Question 16

arguments supporting vl ao3

Answer 16

• employers benefits - employers benefit from employees work and should share liability for torts committed during employment
• encourages accountability - promotes better recruitment, training and supervision on employers, especially in roles that involve vulnerable age groups e.g children, the elderly
• control- employers are placed to control and supervise employees, justifying liability

Question 17

criticism of vl ao3

Answer 17

• imposes liability on employers who may not directly be at fault
• employers may have done everything possible to ensure compliance, making full liability seem unfair
• fairness should be improved by sharing liability between employers and employees

employers may struggle t maintain supervision/control over employees , increasing risk of unfair liability

Question 18

akin to employment and close connection ao3

Answer 18

fairness
- victims of intentional torts e.g sexual assault, need compensation, as tortfeasors may lack resources or be dead

• christian brothers case - 5 criterias satisfied for liability

criticism - liability for non strict employment relationships e.g cox can seem unfair

Question 19

inconsistencies in vl application ao3

Answer 19

• course of employment vs frolic,
• hilton v Thomas burton - no liability
• smith v stages - liability imposed
• Supreme Court cases -
  Armes v Nottinghamshire CC and Barclays Bank v Various Claimants reveal uncertainty and inconsistency.

Question 20

conclusion ao3

Answer 20

• law on vl still developing, leading to uncertainty and inconsistencies