Vicarious Liability Flashcards
Quill (1)
VL is a form of secondary liability in that it is imposed on the basis of the relationship and not of the employers conduct
Quill (2)
the employer is the principal beneficiary of the employee’s conduct and therefore should bear the responsibility of any harm
Catholic Welfare Socity
set out justifications for imposing liability on the employer;
i) activity is one done under the direction of the employer
ii) employee has been employed by the employer
iii) activity is for the benefit of the employer’s business
iv) the employer has deeper pockets - better means to compensate TP
Morrissey v HSE
q whether HSE were liable where screening was negligently carried out by sub-contractor, HSE set standards to be achieved but did not go far enough to say it was involved in directing how the labs went about there duty, not appropriate to impose VL
Quill
the principle shortcoming in relation to the control test is that it is inadequate when applied to specialist employees
Roche v Patrick Kelly
Walsh J, the most determinative factor is to consider the masters right to direct the servant not merely as to what has to be done but as to how it is to be done
Phelan v Coillte TEO
although worker used his own tools, dealt with his own tax affairs and was not entitled to holiday pay, his employer told him where to go, what to do, was paid an hourly rate along with mileage and expenses, Barr J held the companu the worker worked for was VL, the fact they structured the relationship in a cost-effective manner did not alter the rights of the injured party to take a claim against the employer
O’Keefe v Hickey
A (pupil @ school) abused by teacher, argued Dep of Education as the teacher’s employer were VL, SC maj held they were not responsible as teacher was i) not an employee of Dep and ii) actions were outside scope of employment
O’Keefe v Hickey; Hardiman J
the minister was distanced from the management of the school, the minister’s absence of direct control over the teacher prevented a finding against him
JGE v Trustees of Portsmouth
young girl abused in children’s home by priest, trust which appointed him were liable
Various Claimants v Barclay’s Bank
benk held liable for the acts of an independent contractor who was engaged to conduct pre-employment medical exams
Rice v Muddiman
held employer cannot be VL for the wrongdoing of an independent contractor
Quill
the general thrust of the cases is that the type of responsibility given to the employee must be such as to facilitate the unlawful activity under the guise of the performance of duties
Salmond v Heuston
master is responsible for not just what his servant does but how he does it
Smith v Stages
courts loosely defined the concept as when the employee is doing what he is employed to do or anything reasonably incidental to his employment
Boyle v Ferguson
car salesman acting in the course of employment when he crashed a car owned by his employer while accompanied by 2 women, the company had paid for the pyrol and he was doing what any good salesman would do
Shelbourne v Cancer Research (UK)
employee injured @ xmas party when colleague lifted her off the ground, employer was not VL as the employees role in the lab was not connected to conduct at a work party
Iqbal v London Transport Executive
bus conductor moved bus himself, employer had forbidden him from driving buses, his job was solely to collect tickets, employer was not liable when he injured anotehr whilst moving bus
Limpus v London General Omnibus
bus driver was found to be acting within the ocurse of his employment when he was racing other buses, although this was expressly forbidden it was found within the scope of his employment where his job was to drive buses thus employer liable
Mohamud v Morrison Supermarkets
employee was racist & abusive to customer @ petrol station, seriously assualted by employee, CCA found employer not liable but SC overturned decision and held that the key test in establishing a sufficiently close connection between the wrongdoing and the work was to consider whether the employee’s actions were within the field of activities assigned to him, court satisfied there was no break in the chain of events and the assault was carried out during the course of his employment
Lister v Lesley Hall
HOL held employer was liable where a warden of a boarding school sexually abused children as the abuse was interwoven with the carrying out of the warden’s duties, held there must be a material increase in the risk as a consequence of the employer’s enterprise and the duties he entrusted to the employee
O’Keefe v Hickey (SA)
maj held that such torts fall under the close connections test
Reilly v Devereux
P was sexually assaulted as an army private by a superior officer, PTSD, claim against defence forces (employer), held employer was not VL noting that unlike cases involving school/house wardens, the nature of the employment was one which would have encouraged close personal contact where some inherent risk might be said to exist
Hickey v McGowan
P brought claim of battery against D who taught him for 3 years, close connections test applied stating it had been approved by SC in O’Keefe, held the test required an intense focus on the particular circs of the particular case, in the case the 3 yr oeriod involved a great deal of contact and character formation, held employer VL
