Vicarious Liability Flashcards
Is VL a tort?
-No
What is VL used for?
-Used to decide whether an employer or an individual is liable for a tort
What are the two key elements of VL?
1) Was the person alleged to have committed the tort an employee?
2) Did the employee commit the alleged tort during the course of their employment?
What are the 3 traditional tests used to establish if someone is an employee? (element 1)
-Control test
-Organisation test
-Economic Reality test
What are the key cases for each test? (element 1)
1- CT= Yewens V Noakes
2- OT= Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison v McDonald and Evans
3- ERT= Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
What is the control test? (element 1)
-‘Did the master (employer) have the right to control what the employee did, and the way in which it was done’?
What is the organisational test? (element 1)
-A work will be an employee if his work is fully entegrated into the business (eg: staff reporter on a newspaper)
What is the economic reality test? (element 1)
3 Conditions:
1) Employer agrees to provide work/ skill for a wage
2)The employee accepts work that will be subject to the control of the employer
3) Other considerations in the contract are consistent with there being a contract of employment, rather than any other relationship
Recent developments- do you need a contract of employment? case + point, (element 1)
Cox vs MoJ
-You don’t need a contract of employment to be an employee, so long as the work of the indivual furthers the interest of the organisation
Recent developments- can more than one employer be liable? case + point, (element 1)
Viasystems v Thermal Transfer
-Yes as long as employers were ‘entitled to cotnrol the employees’ negligent act in order to prevent it’
-Responsibility = 50%
What are the 5 situations for element 2, ‘acting in the course of employment’?
A. Acting against orders
B. Acting outside employment
C. Employee commiting a criminal act
D. Employee commiting a negligent act
E. Employee on a frolic of their own
What is the point of law + case surrounding (A) acting against orders?
(element 2)
Limpus v London General
A. Even if the employee is acting against the order of his employer while doing the job, the employer CAN be liable
What is the point of law + case surrounding (B) acting outside employment?
(element 2)
Beard v London General Omnibus
B. If employee causes injuury by doing something oustide fo their employment, the employer will NOT be liable
What is the point of law + case surrounding (C) employee committing a criminal act?
(element 2)
Lister v Hesley Hall
C. If there is a ‘close connection’ between crime and what employee is emplyed to do then the employer CAN be liable
What is the point of law + case surrounding (D) employee committing a negligent act?
(element 2)
Century Inusrance v NIRT Board
D. If the employee does a job badly, the employer CAN be liable for his actions if they cause injury to another
What is the point of law + case surrounding (E) employee on a frolic of their own?
(element 2)
Hilton v Thomas Burton Ltd
Employer not liable if employee is doing something outside of the area or time of their work
