Vicarious Liability

Question 1

When does vicarious liability arise?

Answer 1

1. ) An employer - employee relationship or a relationship akin to employment
2. ) a tortious act committed in the course of their employment

Question 2

DIRECT EMPLOYMENT

Mohamud v WM Morrison’s Supermarkets

Answer 2

Facts: • C stopped at the petrol station of one of D’s supermarkets
• C asked D’s employee if he could print something off and he refused in an offensive manner
• D’s employee was then racially abusive and violent towards C, followed him to his car and told him never to return to the petrol station

Judgment: Claim succeeded

L.P: • Sufficient connection between employees course of employment and tort

Question 3

AKIN TO EMPLOYMENT

E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity

Answer 3

Facts: • C alleged sexual abuse by priest who had been appointed by a bishop
• Trust denied liability because priest was not an employee

Judgment: Relationship was akin to employment

L.P: • Is the relationship employment or sufficiently akin to employment?

Question 5

AKIN TO EMPLOYMENT

Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants

Answer 5

Facts: • Brothers of a Christian institute taught at a school and evidence emerged showing physical and sexual abuse to the boys spanning more than three decades m
• Was institute VL for brothers actions

Judgment: They were

L.P: • Relationship between brothers and institute was sufficiently akin to employment
• Lord Philips set out 5 principles:
1.) Employer is more likely to be able to pay
2.) Tort committed as a result of activity on behalf of the employer
3.) The employee’s activity likely to be part of employers business activity
4.) The employer, by employing the employee to carry on the activity will have created the risk of the tort committed by employee
5.) Employee will, to a greater or lesser degree have been under the control of the employer

Question 6

AKIN TO EMPLOYMENT

Cox v Ministry of Justice

Answer 6

Facts: • C was a catering manager in a prison and was moving supplies with the help of prisoners
• Rice was spilt all over the floor and C ordered prisoners to stop work until it was moved
• One ignored and tried to get past, dropping a heavy bag on C’s back
• C claimed VL for damages

Judgment: D was VL for prisoners negligence

L.P: • Meets criteria:

2. ) Tort is committed as a result of activity on behalf of employer
3. ) The employees activity likely to be part of employers business activity
4. ) The employer, by employing the employee to carry on the activity will have created the risk of the tort committed by the employee

Question 7

IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd

Answer 7

Facts: • D employed a warden to do the day to day runnings of a school
• Warden was systemically abusing the children -> the C’s
• C claimed that D had been negligent in selection and control of warden

Judgment:

L.P: • Sufficient connection between work and abuse -> abuse was in scope of employment
• “inextricably interwoven”

Question 8

IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT

Rose v Plenty

Answer 8

Facts: • A milkman paid C ( 13 year old boy) to help him collect and deliver milk bottles on his round
• This was prohibited by his employer
• C fell off due to Milkman’s negligent driving and was injured
• C claimed damages against employee and employer

Judgment: Employer was VL

L.P: •Tort occurred in course of helping employers business therefore he was VL despite prohibition