Vicarious Liability

Question 1

Market investigations ltd v social secuty minister

Answer 1

Employee or not?
→ She is an employee, despite ‘limited discretion’
Cooke: Does X work “as a person in business or on his own account?”

Question 2

Hall v Lorimer

Answer 2

D sound engineer worked for 20 companies, some K lasted only a day. → Independent contractor ≠ employee

Question 3

Mersey docks & Harbour board

Answer 3

Borrowed employee. Permanent employer liable.

Question 4

Viasystems

Answer 4

C contracted with D1 to install air conditioning. D1 sub-K with D2; and D2 sub-K with D3 who is negligent. D1 or D2 liable?
- Whose responsibility it was to prevent the breach
- ‘Both have a general responsibility to select their
personnel with care’ + both = furtherance of purposes → Both vicariously liable

Question 5

Catholic Child Welfare Society

Answer 5

Dual vicarious liability

School for vulnerable boys. Management of the school + institute (holy order) supplying teachers + headmaster. Sexual abuse by staff members. No K.

The law of vicarious liability has been extended. Unincorporated associations might now be liable, such liability extended beyond the strict extent of the employee’s duties, and could include illegal activity, and such liability can be shared

Question 6

JGE

Answer 6

Children home operated by nuns. Abused by priest.
→ Close connection test: Relationship between D & tortfeasor so close to relationship employer/employee that it can be fairly said to be akin to employment

Question 7

Morgans v Launchbury

Answer 7

A vehicle owner is vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver when, but only when, the driver is the agent of the owner, in the sense that he is using it for the owner’s delegated purpose.

Question 8

Cox v Ministry of Justice

Answer 8

Prison case. Prisoner working (delivering food to others) in prison
→ Financial savings, work done for D’s benefit, part of the venture of D in the running of the prison. Liability

Question 9

Salmond Test

Answer 9

A wrongful act is is the course of employment if:

(a) Wrongful act authorised by master
(b) Unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised

Question 10

Joel v Morison

Answer 10

If employee on a “frolic of his own” (does sth for his own purpose); no vicarious liability

Question 11

Rose v Plenty

Answer 11

Milkman allowed children to assist him in milk round

→ Although prohibited, within the course of employment

Question 12

Lister v Hesley Hal ltd

Answer 12

Warden in boarding school, sexual abuse.

→ Inherent risk (job allowed abuse + geo/temporal proximity) → Sexual abuse ‘inextricably interwoven’ w/ his duties

Question 13

Dubai Aluminium Co

Answer 13

Lister isn’t confined to sexual abuse cases (here: sham K) A solicitor had been alleged to have dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners

Question 14

Mattis v Pollock

Answer 14

C sought damages after being assaulted by a doorman employed by the D;
→ Liable, because D encouraged bouncer to be aggressive and intimidating + Employer have responsibility to select employees with care (history of violence)

Question 15

Majorowski

Answer 15

Vicarious liability = also for statutory torts (Harassment Act)

Question 16

Mohamud v Morrison Supermarket

Answer 16

C wanted to print from USB stick. Racial abuse + punched ≠ what he had been employed to do → No liability.

Question 17

Graham v Commercial Bodyworks

Answer 17

The claimant had been very badly burned. He was covered in flammable liquid when a co-worker lit a cigarette.
No vicarious liability; act not close enough to the idea of course of employment