Vicarious Liability Flashcards
Introduce Vicarious Liability.
- Imposing liability for a tort onto someone who didn’t commit the tort- usually person who employs the person causing the tort, did damage to property/personal injury to another.
- Strict liability tort- don’t need to establish breach + damage.
- Barclays Bank PLC v Various Claimants (2020): gave 2 tests required to prove vicarious liability, + be able to claim off employer, rather than employee.
- Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (2023): confirmed + developed tests.
Explain the 1st Test of Vicarious Liability, Testing Employment Status.
- Tortfeasor (person committing tort) must be an employee of employer using traditional tests of employment OR there’s a relationship akin to employment between tortfeasor + employer.
- Different tests may be used by judges to decide if they’re employed (pick test applicable- potentially more than 1)
Explain the Control Test, with regard to Testing Employment Status, for Vicarious Liability.
- Traditional test for traditional employment.
- Is the employer in control of employee day to day?
- Yemens v Noakes: whether the employer had the right to control what the employee did + the way in which it was done.
- Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd: bouncers operating outside clubs- clubs vicariously liable.
Explain the Integration Test, with regard to Testing Employment Status, for Vicarious Liability.
- Is the employee’s work fully integrated into the business?
- Stevenson Jordan: Lord Denning established this test. Worker will be an employee if their work is fully integrated (needed) into business.
Explain the Economic Reality or Multiple Test, with regard to Testing Employment Status, for Vicarious Liability.
- Looks at financial arrangements.
-
Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions + National Insurance: McKenna J developed a test which set 3 conditions needing to be met before employment relationship was identified.
1) Employee agrees to provide work in return for a wage.
2) Employee accepts work’s subject to employers’ control (expressed or implied)
3) other considerations in contract of employment are consistent with there being a contract of employment rather than any other relationship. - Barclays Bank PLC v Various Claimants (2020): employers will never be vicariously liable if tortfeasor’s an independent contractor + not employed.
Explain A Relationship Sufficiently Akin To Akin Test, with regard to Testing Employment Status, for Vicarious Liability.
(new test)
* The Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants: gave new question to ask if employment can’t be proved via previous tests.
* Cox v Ministry of Justice: even without contract of employment, can still be an employee.
* Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: foster parents now classed as employed.
Explain the Second Test of Vicarious Liability, Was Tort Committed In Course Of Employment?
- Wrongful conduct was so closely connected with acts that tortfeasor was authorised to do so, it can fairly fall within course of employment.
- Must be a sufficiently close connection between relationship + tort committed.
- Various ways courts decide this- only consider those relevant.
With regard to the Second Test of Vicarious Liability, explain Acting Against Orders.
- Limpus v London General: if employee’s doing their job but acts against orders in the way they do it, employer can be liable, as employers still benefiting.
- Twine v Beans Express: if employee gives C unauthorised lift, employer not liable as no benefit to them. Applicable if there’s a vehicle- road traffic accidents.
- Beard v London General Omnibus Co.: if employee causes injury by doing something outside what he was employed to do, employer not liable.
With regard to the Second Test of Vicarious Liability, explain Employee Committing A Criminal Act.
- Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc: employer may be liable to V of crime if there’s a close connection between crime + what employee was employed to do.
- N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police: employer not vicariously liable where there’s no close connection.
- Chell v Tarmac Cement + Lime Ltd (2022): more modern authority, confirming this decision.
With regard to the Second Test of Vicarious Liability, explain Employee Committing A Negligent Act.
- Century Insurance Co. Ltd V NI Road Transport Board: if employee’s doing their job badly, employer can be liable for his actions.
- Employers have social responsibility for their position- duty to train staff + make sure they’re abiding by rules.
With regard to the Second Test of Vicarious Liability, explain Employee Acting On A ‘Frolic’ Of Their Own.
- Wm Morrison Supermarket v Various Claimants (2020): if employee’s conduct causes injury/damage while doing something outside area/time of work, employer not liable.
- Ali v Luton Borough Council (2022): confirms this.
- Smith v Stages: different result- employer was vicariously liable.
Explain Payment Of Compensation, with regards to Vicarious Liability.
- Employer will be primarily liable + can be ordered to pay compensation.
- V only receives 1 payment, so can’t sue individual.
- Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978: employer can recover any compensation paid out- however right of recovery is unlikely as you’ll want to keep a person working for you, if they’ve cost you money.
- No defences to consider.
