Vicarious liability Flashcards
** Woodland v Essex CC [2013] UKSC 6
- When non-del duties arise,
• The SC set criteria which would give rise to the existence of a non-delegable duty of care.
o In the instant case, the local authority had owed a duty of care to ensure that reasonable care was taken to secure the safety of a pupil who was attending a swimming lesson conducted through an independent contractor.
♣ The court held that there was a non-delegable duty of care because the claimant was a child vulnerable or dependent on the protection of the defendant against the risk of injury.
♣ Another point is that the defendant had delegated to a third party some function, and thus delegated the custody or care of the claimants and the element of control
• Facts
o A school pupil was injured during school-arranged swimming lesson organised and provided off-site by independent contractor. The swimming teacher and lifeguard were employed by an independent contractor and were negligent toward the pupil, as a result the pupil suffered brain damage when resuscitated. The claimant brought an action for personal injury.
o Neither of them was employed by the local authority. Their services had been provided to the authority by an independent contractor.
o Issues
♣ Whether the local authority was liable for the negligence of an independent contractor?
♣ Whether owing non-delegable duty to secure that reasonable care of school pupils at a location remote from the school?
• Held
o There was no direct relationship between the defendants.
o It was contended that the local authority owed the claimant ‘a non-delegable duty of care.’ That the local authority is vicariously liable of both the second defendant and the life guard.
Notes
• The outcome of this case does not apply to all school cases
• But it establishes that during school hours’ safety of children must be protected. Children are categorised as a vulnerable category. The test was extended as the event of the case did not take place in a school, however, these were authorised by the school.
• S1 Compensation purpose – schools would be afraid of organising trips in the case that any child would be injured – if it was a desirable activity, this is something the judge would take on board
Hawley v Luminar [2006] EWCA Civ 18
- Who is an employer/employee?
• Decision on employment and test of employment
• Facts
o Defendant Luminar is a nightclub had hired the tort feasor bouncer through an organisation called ASE which is now in liquidation. On the night in question the bouncer attacked the claimant, punching him in the face and knocking him to the ground. The claimant sued Luminar vicariously.
• Held
o The bouncer was found to be the sole employee of Luminar at the time of the assault due to two main reasons:
♣ ASE did not have control over the tortfeasor; whereas Luminar did
♣ The tortfeasor had become an integral part of Luminar’s operation.
o Hallett LJ argued that Luminar was perfectly capable of hiring its own bouncers, doing it through ASE was nothing more than a means of bypassing labour law; because Luminar is incapable of screening it own bouncers the quality of the bouncer provided by ASE is something that Luminar could easily verify, it was therefore immaterial that ASE was negligent in their screening.
Viasystems v Thermal Transfer [2006] 2 WLR 428
- Who is an employer/employee?
• CA case concerning vicarious liability, and the possibility of holding more than one employer vicariously liable.
• Facts
o The claimant contracted with D1 to install air condition. D1 sub-contracted with D2 to carry out ducting work, D2 then hired D3 to do the fitting. Due to negligence on part of D3 damage was done to the property. The court was called upon to determine whether it is D1 or D2 that is liable for the negligence of D3.
• Held
o May LJ based on Denning LJ’s proposition in Denham held – that the court should concentrate on whose responsibility it was to prevent the breach and not whether there was a transfer of employment, which would depend on who has the power to give orders and tell D3 how he carries out his work. On this basis the court found D2 and D3 vicariously liable for the negligence.
o Applying the Civil Liabilities (Contribution) Act 1978 the court held that the respective liability of D2 and D3 are equal, therefore they ordered to pay 50% each (jointly equal liable).
o Rix LJ –
♣ Said that vicarious liability applies where it is ‘fair, just, and convenient’ for it to do so.
Notes
• Problem, the ability to control the employee loses its attractions
• Lord Denning talked about the integration test: during the course of employment work is integrated.
• The control test still applies it has not been overruled.
** JGE v English Province of our Lady of Charity
and Trustees of Portsmouth RC Diocesan Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 938
(n.b. refused leave to appeal to the UKSC in 2012)
- Who is an employer/employee?
• Diocesan Trust found vicariously liable for abuse carried out by a priest of its diocese.
• The decision involved the issue as to whether the Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust (standing in the place of the Bishop at the time) maybe vicariously liable for alleged child abuse by a priest of the diocese. The claimant alleged that she was sexually abused by a priest (now deceased) whilst resident in a home between 1970 and 1972.
• The argument before the court centred on whether the relationship between the priest and the Trust was akin to employment.
• Decision
o Mr Macduff set out a two stage test in determining vicarious liability:
♣ The first is the relationship stage, involved an inquiry into the relationship between the priest and the Trust – whether it was a relationship (classically employment) to which the principles of vicarious liability may attach. This was the key issue.
♣ The second stage involved an inquiry as to the wrongful act or omission of the priest and whether this was within the scope of his employment, although this was a matter to be determined by the trial judge.
• Held
o The decision was one to which vicarious liability could attach – yes.
♣ Within the Diocesan of Portsmouth, priests are appointment verbally with no real terms and conditions, other than those derived from canon law. There is no control over the priests once appointed and within the boundaries of canon law, the priest can conduct his ministry as he sees fit.
♣ Within the hierarchy there is some element of control from the bishop, although nothing by way of penalty or enforcement. The priest was considered as a holder of office rather than an employee and the relationship differed from the normal employment relationship in a number of ways.
♣ Despite the unusual nature of the relationship, the priest was appointed on behalf of the Trust in order to do its work: to undertake the ministry on behalf of the Trust for the benefit of the church. He was given full authority of the Trust to do that work and was supplied with the tools and training to do so.
• Comment
o The decision confirms that in deciding whether vicarious liability should apply, the courts will look at the full nature of the relationship between the parties. The judge state ‘…it is the nature and the closeness of the relationship which is the test at stage one…All the surrounding facts and circumstances are to be considered. These will include many of the matters which are of relevance also at stage two.’
Lister v Hesley Hall [2002] 1 AC 215
- Torts ‘in the course of employment’
• HL decision regarding vicarious liability, famous for overturning the Salmon test and articulating the modern test for ‘acting in the course of employment’ the Close Connection.
• The judges in this case were heavily influenced by the Canadian Supreme Court’s decision in Bazley v Curry. The Close Connection test existed before Lister but was not expressly articulated yet.
• Facts
o Hesley Hall was a boarding house for students with severe emotional problem, the warden Mr Graine had supervision of the pupils at Hesley Hall and their daily routine. It transpired during the early 90s that Mr Graine had sexually abused these children and that they had suffered psychiatric injuries.
• Judgement
o If the court was to uphold the Salmon test which required:
♣ The wrongful act must be authorised by the employer;/ unauthorised acts which were not given authority to do.
♣ The wrongful mode was unauthorised
♣ The close connection test does not solve all of these difficulties but it is another way of looking at it.
o This rule meant that an employee engaging in a criminal act such as in this case will never be acting in the course of employment, meaning injustice.
• CA
o The judges followed the case of Trotman and held that Hesley Hall was not liable.
• HL
o Established vicarious liability and found:
o Warden was selected by the school -
♣ The purpose of the warden’s duty was to develop trust with the children, that trust gave him access to the boys and allowed the abuse;
♣ There was a geographical and temporal proximity to the employment, as the abused occurred on the premises of his employment and during the time which he should be carrying out his employment duties;
♣ There is an inherent risk of sexual abuse in these type of occupations, for the courts to find Hesley Hall liable could potentially be a deterrent to potential abusers.
o Lord Steyn – said that the Warden’s criminal acts were closely connected to his work, hence Hesley Hall was vicariously liable.
o Lord Hobhouse – rejected the notion of vicarious liability, and argued that Hesley hall owned a direct duty to the children, therefore they are directly liable in tort for systematic negligence.
o Lord Millet – preferred a wider approach than Bazley. i.e. any risk that are incidental to employment will give rise to vicarious liability.
Mattis v Pollock [2003] 1 WLR 2158
- Torts ‘in the course of employment’
• The case establishes an employer’s vicarious liability for assault, even when it may be intentional or pre-meditated. Previously, judges had been unwilling to impose liability where assaults were motivated by revenge or vengeance. It was established however, following the decision of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd, that where an assault is closely linked to the duties of an employee, the employer should be held vicariously liable.
• Facts
o Nightclub case. A person employed to be a bouncer employed to keep order in the nightclub, the orders were to be merciless with clients who were out of control. Mr Mattis was banned from the club, upon seeing him, the bouncer who had orders of being violent for a knife came back to the club and stubbed the Mr Mattis who was rendered paraplegic.
• Was he liable?
• Trial judge –
o Held that he was not liable for the stubbing of Mr Mattis.
o This is because the event was not part of one continuous string of events, as the bouncer had fled home leaving his duties, he was no longer within the course of his employment.
♣ ‘The lapse of time and intervening events were, in my judgment, of such nature that it would not be right to treat the event culminating in the stabbing of Mr Mattis as one incident commencing in the club.’
• The CA rejected this argument
o ‘The stabbing of Mr Mattis represented the unfortunate, and virtual culmination of the unpleasant incident which had started within the club, and could not fairly and justly be treated in isolation from earlier events, or as a separate and distinct incident. Even allowing Craston’s behaviour included an important element of personal revenge, approaching the matter broadly, at the moment when Mr Mattis was stabbed, the responsibility of Mr Pollock for the actions of his aggressive doorman was not extinguished. Vicarious liability was therefore established.’
o In recent appeals, Lister v Hesley Hall and Dubai Aluminium Co, the judge LJ did not look to establishe that the stabbing had occurred in the course of Cranston’s employment, but whether the stabbing was closely connected to his work, and instruction. It was therefore of particular importance that the bouncer had been instructed by his employer, and was known to be violent and intimidating to customers.
♣ ‘Mr Pollock chose to employ Cranston, knowing and approving of his aggressive tendencies, which he encouraged rather than curbed, and the assault on Mr Mattis represented the culmination of an incident which began in Mr Pollock’s premises and involved his customers, in which his employee behaved in violent and aggressive manner which Mr Pollock expected of him.;
• No – this was an authorised act allowed by the club owner
• But in the end the court says that he is liable on vicarious liability and the owner encouraged him to be violent.
o Lord Millett in Dubai Aluminium v Salaam – HL – ‘the master ought to be liable for all torts which can fairly be regarded as reasonably incidental risks to the type of business he carries on.’
Bernard v AG Jamaica [2004] UKPC 47 (Privy Council)
- Torts ‘in the course of employment’
• The claimant was in the front of a queue to use a public telephone. A policeman demanded to use the phone. The claimant declined. In the ensuing argument the policeman shot the claimant and later arrested him for interfering with his duties as a policeman.
• Whether the AG of Jamaica was vicariously liable for the conduct of a police constable, a relevant factor was the risks to others created by an employer who entrusted duties, tasks and functions to an employee.
• Held
o Although the policeman was off duty vicarious liability was established because he purported to be on official business and this was evidenced by the subsequent arrest.
o The AG of Jamaica employer could be vicariously liable notwithstanding that the employee was acting for his own benefit.
♣ It was necessary to consider whether the unlawful shooting was so closely connected with the officer’s employment that it would be fair and just to hold the AG vicariously liable.
♣ It was of prime importance that the shooting followed immediately upon the announcement by the officer that he was a policeman, which was probably calculated to create the impression that he was acting on police business.
♣ The creation of the risk inherent in giving the officer a revolver for use at home reinforced the conclusion that vicarious liability was established.
o Lord Steyn
♣ ‘The principle of vicarious liability is not infinitely extendable.’
** Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham [2010] EWCA Civ 256
- Torts ‘in the course of employment’• The CA held that it was fair and just to hold the Roman Catholic Church vicariously liable for the sexual abuse of a boy by one of its priests. The vicarious liability arose out of the close connection between the sexual abuse and the priest’s employment.
•
• Facts
o C who has learning difficulties alleged that he had been sexually abused by a Catholic priest.
o The CA referred to the decision in the HL in Lister v Hesley Hall.
• Held
• The court therefore concluded that the priest abused the claimant under the ‘cloak, or guise, of performing his pastoral duties’. The claimant’s appealed was allowed.
o Lord Neuberger MR said: ‘The fact that the opportunity to commit abuse arises as a result of the employment is not enough.’ It is also necessary to show that there were additional factors, linked to the employment, involved. However, it is clear that it will be difficult for an employer to escape vicarious liability in cases such as this. It is worth remembering that Mattis the employer, a nightclub owner, was found vicariously liable for the acts of a bouncer who stabbed the claimant with a knife, having left the club but returned on revenge.
Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church (see Giliker LQR 2010 126: 521-524)
** Catholic Child Welfare Society & Others vs Institute
- Torts ‘in the course of employment’
• The case considered two points: first the type of relationship that can give rise to vicarious liability at law; second the connection that linked the relationship with the wrongful act or omission.
• Facts
o The members of the Brothers of the Christian Schools are brothers of the Catholic Church.
o The question arising is whether the institute is responsible in law (vicariously liable) for alleged acts of sexual and physical abuse of children by its members.
o The headmaster Brother James of the school was expelled from the Institute after it was discovered that he was guilty of systematic sexual abuse of boys in his care. Claims were brought against Brother James and others.
• Held
o The High Court held that the Institute defendants were not vicariously liable for the acts of abuse committed by brothers at the School.
o The CA upheld that ruling.
• SC
o Allowed the appeal. It holds that it is fair, just and reasonable for the Instituted Defendants to share with the other group of defendants’ vicarious liability for sexual abuse committed by the brothers.
o The law of vicarious liability has developed recently to establish a number of important proposition, discussed by Lord Phillips:
♣ It is possible for unincorporated associations such as the Institute to be vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of its members.
♣ It is possible to be vicariously liable even if the wrongdoer’s act is in breach of the duty he owes to the person liable and even if the act was the criminal offence of sexual assault.
♣ It is possible for two or more different defendants each to be vicariously liable for a single wrongful act.
Test for vicarious liability – now re-defined – TEST BY LORD PHILLIPS IN THE SC. - Examination of the relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor.
a. Previously, it was asked whether there was a contract of employment; but the test is no longer so confined. - This part requires an assessment of the link between this relationship, and the tort committed: is there a sufficiently close connection?
a. Previously it was asked, and still does, whether the tort was committed in the course of employment.
Lord Hope – the widespread sexual abuse of children ‘has presented the law of vicarious liability, once relatively well settled, with new challenges’
Gilker Article
• Discusses whether the Church could be liable not only to the priest’s Catholic parishioners but also to a non-Catholic child whom the priest befriended then abused. Considers the earlier applicability of the HL ruling in Lister v Hesley Hall.
of the Brothers of the Christian Schools [2012] UKSC 56 (worth reading in full)
EL v Children’s Society [2012] EWHC 365 - [19-27], [52-57]
- Torts ‘in the course of employment’
• A children’s charity was not vicariously liable for sexual abuse suffered by a child resident at one of its children’s homes perpetrated by the house parents’ son. There was no evidence that the son had been engaged to care for the children, and in so far as he had used his ‘position’ to commit acts of abuse, it was his status as the houseparents’ son which gave him authority and not an employment relationship.
• The court did not exercise its discretion under s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claimant’s claim to proceed.
• Facts
o Son would visit his parent’s house during vacations. Claimant alleged that he had been sexually abused during one of his visits.
• Held
o No vicarious liability imposed on the parents.
o 1. The doctrine of vicarious liability was a principle of strict liability, imposing liability for a tort committed by an employee without the requirement for proof of fault by the employer.
♣ Therefore, it was necessary to keep the doctrine within clear limits.
♣ A two-stage inquiry was required:
• 1. To examine the connection between the defendant and the tortfeasor,
• 2. To examine the connection between the defendant and the act or omission of the tortfeasor in question.
• The test involved two further questions;
o 1. Whether the employer had entrusted to the tortfeasor work, such as the care of the children,
o 2. If so, whether there was sufficiently close connection between the torts and the tortfeasor’s employment for it to be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable.
o 2. The son was never left in charge of the home. The problem was that the abuse had never taken place when the son acted as temporary relief of his parents.
♣ The son’s ‘position’ was derived as being the houseparent’s son as it was his home which gave him ‘air authority’ and nothing else.
♣ It followed that the position of the son was of non-employment and his parents could not be held vicariously liable.
Allen v Chief Constable of Hampshire [2013] EWCA Civ 967
- Torts ‘in the course of employment’
• A chief constable was not vicariously liable for the alleged tortious acts of a police officer as the facts did not reveal any, close connection between the alleged acts and the tortfeasor’s position as a police officer.
• Facts
o The claimant alleged that she commenced a relationship with another police officer. Her ex-partner begun to harass her.
o The complaints included the receipt of abusive anonymous letters, telephone calls by her ex suggesting that she should move out of the area, an arson attack on her home and criminal damage to her car.
o An arson was reported but the CPS decided not to prosecute the police officer.
o There was no evidence to support misconduct.
o The claimant said:
♣ The chief constable was vicariously liable for the acts of the police officer by virtue of the Police Act 1996
♣ and the inadequate investigation into his wrongdoing breached the State’s investigative duties under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.3.
• Held
o Her appeal was dismissed.
o The criteria to establish vicarious liability was not met:
♣ 1. There must be a relationship between the individual tortfeasor and the party said to be vicariously liable capable of triggering the doctrine.
♣ 2. The tort committed must be sufficiently connected with that relationship. Various claimants v institute of the brothers of the Christian school was applied.
o The police officer’s threats were not during the course of his employment. He did not purport to act as a police officer.
- A v Trustees of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society [2015] EWHC 1722 (QB)
- Torts ‘in the course of employment’
• Trustees of a society of Jehovah’s Witnesses were vicariously liable for sexual assaults carried out by a ministerial servant on a child in the congregation between 1989 and 1994, and for the failure of the elders to take reasonable steps to protect her from the abuse her once they knew of his abuse of another child in 1990.
• The limit period was disapplied in relation to the complaint against the elders because the claimant did not have sufficient knowledge within the meaning of the Limitation Act 1980 s 14(1).
• Facts
o The claimant brought an action for damages for personal injury arising out of sexual assaults committed by a ministerial servant of the religious society of Jehovah’s witnesses when she was a child.
• Held
o 1. C did not have sufficient knowledge within the meaning of the Limitation period.
o 2. She had suffered psychiatric damage justified by her inability to focus on the prospects of bringing proceedings until 2013, A v Hoare.
o 3. The high level of control over all aspects of the life of a JW was akin to a relationship between employer and employee.
♣ As a ministerial servant he played an integral role in the organisation. Therefore, the relationship between elders and ministerial servants was sufficiently close in character to an employment relationship. It was fair, just and reasonable to impose vicarious liability. The defendant’s sexual abuse of the claimant did not result from mere opportunity, but his specific role as a JW.
o 4. Following the defendant’s sexual abuse of another child, it was foreseeable that his continued presence within the congregation presented a risk of abuse and harm to other children.
♣ It was therefore, fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care upon the elders to protect the children from sexual abuse by D. The duty assumed by the elders was to warn the congregation about the risk. Warnings had either not taken place, or were inadequate.
o The defendants (JW society) were vicariously liable for the actions of the elders in relation to their breach of duty in 1990 and were therefore responsible for the abuse of C in the safeguarding claim.
• Mr Justice Globe:
o ‘In my judgment the relationship between elders and ministerial servants and the Jehovah’s Witnesses is sufficiently close in character to one of employer/employee that it is just and fair to impose vicarious liability.’
- NA v Nottinghamshire CC [2015] EWCA Civ 1139
- Torts ‘in the course of employment’
The local authority which had exercised reasonable care in placing a child in its care with foster carers and supervising the placement could not be vicariously liable for the abuse perpetrated by the foster carers on the child. Nor was it fair, just of reasonable to find that the local authority had a non-delegable duty of care so as to make it legally responsible for the foster carers’ actions.
• Facts
o N had spent most of her childhood in care living both with her mother and several foster placements.
o N claimed that she had been physically abused by her M’s partner P and had been physically, sexually and emotionally abused by two sets of foster carers.
• Her claims
o 1. That the local authority had breached its duty of care by failing to remove her from M’s care
o 2. Even though the local authority had exercised reasonable care, in terms of her foster placements, the local authority was responsible for the foster carer’s abuse, on the basis of vicarious liability, or on the basis that it owed her a non-delegable duty of care.
• Issues
o 1. Whether the limitation period should be disapplied
o 2. Whether the local authority had breached its duty of care to N in respect of either of her claims.
• Held
o Judgment for the defendant.
♣ To disapply the limitation period, in cases involving historic child abuse delay was critical only to the extent that it affected the defendant’s ability to defend. If a fair trial was not possible, that was the end of the matter, but if a fair trial was possible, the balance of injustice had to be considered.
♣ While placing a child with foster carers might be regarded as inherently risky, the benefits made it a risk worth taking, provided that reasonable care was taken to ensure that the placement was suitable.
Gwilliam v West Herts Hospital NHS Trust [2003] QB 443
- Primary duties re care in selection and supervision
• CA
• Case concerning occupiers’ liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. It also raises the question of whether the duty of care should encompass a duty to enquire into the insurance status of contractors for dangerous activities.
• Facts
o Gwilliam went to an NHS organised fun a fair where there was a splat wall. Waller LJ described it as allowing the participant to bounce from a trampoline and adhere by means of Velcro material to a wall.
o Ms Gwilliam was injured because the splat wall had been set up negligently. The hospital had got the splat wall through an independent contractor called ‘Club Entertainment’ by looking them up in the phone book. It turned out that the contractor’s public liability insurance had expired just a few days before the event.
♣ Ms Gwilliam settled a claim against the contractor for £5,000 for compensation for her injuries. The figure reflected the fact that the contractor was not in a position to pay more.
♣ She then sued the NHS for the remaining compensation that she could have got, on the basis that they did not provide a safe environment for her as a visitor and they failed to enquire into the contractor’s insurance status.
o Held
o No duty of care owed. No damages could be recovered from the NHS.
o Lord Woolf MR and Waller LJ held that under s2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, the Hospital did owe a duty of care to the claimant (Sedley dissenting as to whether a duty of care was owed).
o The question was whether the hospital had discharged this duty, and it was held that this included establishing that the independent contractor was competent for the context of a fair in the hospital grounds. The nature of the event demanded that the insurance be checked. Indeed, it was asked whether there was insurance at the time of booking, however, it was unbeknown that it would expire, and that it would be ‘an unreasonable requirement’ to have insisted upon checking the policy document. As such the hospital had discharged its duty and the appeal was dismissed.
o Dissent
♣ Sedley LJ concurred that the Trust was liable but dissented on the statements concerning insurance. He said that if there was a duty of care, it would be a logical and factual leap to include inquiry into insurance into the duty of care. That would not be fair just and reasonable.
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club [2003] EWCA Civ 1575
o Issues – Occupiers Liability – independent contractor – dangerous activity – fireworks.
o Summary
o The defendant club, which allowed dangerous pyrotechnic display to take place on its land, owed a duty of care to the claimant, who was lawfully on the land assisting the contractors conducting the display, and along with the contractors was liable to the claimant when he was injured in an explosion because the contractors and the Club failed to take ordinary precautions.
o Facts
o The claimant went to a fundraising event at the Cricket Club. He had been invited along by the defendants to help them carry out their show which constituted bonfire and a conventional fireworks display.
o In the course of helping, Mr Bottomley suffered sever burns and a broken arm. His claimed was valued between £250,000 and £300,000.
o The Club had appointed a Sub-Committee to be in charge of the bonfire event known as ‘Chaos Encounter’.
o Held
o CA
o The judge concluded that the Club had failed to take care when selecting Chaos the contractor. On the basis that a person who engages an independent contractor to carry out work is not liable for the negligence of the independent contractor provided that the person exercised reasonable care in engaging a reasonably competent contractor.
o Occupiers usually escaped liability in cases like this because they could show that they had taken reasonable care to select competent and safe contractors.
♣ However, the HL had acknowledged in Ferguson v Welsh that there might be circumstances in which the occupier of the land who wished something dangerous done on his land for his benefit might be liable as well. The circumstances amounted to failure to select a reasonably competent contractor. The injuries suffered by the claimant were foreseeable. There was no proper safety plan. There was the required proximity between the Cricket Club and Mr Bottomley who was lawfully on the premises. It was fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the Club because it did not do what it ought to have done before it allowed a dangerous event to take place. The fact that on this occasion Chaos performed their services for no fee made no difference.
♣ Club’s appeal dismissed.
Notes
Some people say that the reason for imposing vicarious liability is due to enterprise.
• Vicarious liability in employment
o Establish a relationship of employment and then establish whether the tort was committed during the course of employment.
♣ What constitutes employment arises in many situations i.e. vicarious liability,
