Vicarious Liability Flashcards
Vicarious liability
A means of imposing liability on someone other than the tortfeasor (person doing the act)
3 requirements in establishing VL
- Was a tort committed?
- Was the tortfeasor an employee?
- Was the employee acting in the course of employment when the tort was committed?
Requirement 2
The occupier will only be liable for torts committed by one of their employees, not by an independent contractor who was working for them.
Barclays v arbours claimants: Dr Bates was a self-employed medical practitioner who sexually assaulted women he had to perform medical exams on as prospective Barclays employees. SC held that Barclays weren’t liable as Dr Bates was never an employee as he was in business of his own account as a medical practitioner.
Tests to decide which workers are employees and which are independent contractors
- Control test
- The integration test
- Economic reality/multiple test
Control test
How much control does the employer exercise over the other person’s work
Integration test
Is the person’s work so fully integrated into the business that they could be considered an employee
Economic reality / multiple test
E.g. how the tortfeasor is paid who pays tax, who decides working hours sick/holiday pay, who provides tools and materials
Ready mixed concrete v minister of pensions
Drivers were not employees
Employment-like relationships
Cox v Ministry of Justice: C worked in prison kitchen and was injured by a working prisoner. Not necessary for employer to be carrying out commercial activities
Requirement 3
Was the tort committed during the course of employment
Joel v Morison: “not on a frolic of his own”
Employer is liable for wrongful acts expressly authorised the employer OR authorised acts carried out in an unauthorised or wrongful manner
Poland v Parr
Employee assaulted boy stealing from employer’s wagon.
HELD: in the course of employment as the company benefitted
(Wrongful acts expressly authorised by employer)
Limpus v London General Omnibus Co
Employer instructed its bus drivers not to e other buses. One driver did and caused an accident.
HELD: employer liable to injured claimant as the driver was doing his job.
(Authorised act in an unauthorised manner)
Beard v London General Omnibus Co
A bus conductor drove a bus without authority of employer and injured the claimant.
HELD: employer not liable as conductor was doing something outside his course of employment.
Compare Rose v Plenty and Twine v Beans Express
Rose v Plenty: employer liable as the company benefitted from the negligent act of employee.
Twine v Bean Express: employer not liable as they were gaining no benefit from employee’s unauthorised act.
Close connection test
