Vicarious Liability Flashcards
Vicarious Liability
Liability of one legal person to the Tort of another.
Tests for finding employee status
Control Test
Organisation test Economic reality test
Control test
Assesses whether the employer has the right to control; nature of work and how it is carried out.
Yewen v Noakes
Organisation test
This test distinguishes between a contract of service and a contract of services.
Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v McDonnel
Contract of service
Work that is not integrated into the business but is an accessory to it.
Economic Reality test
Employee agrees (expressly/impliedly) that they will work under the employer’s control.
All other circumstances are consistent with those of contract of employment.
Ready Mixed Concrete
Two situations which fall within course of employment;
- Acts authorised by employer
- Carrying out an authorized act in an unauthorised manner.
Case showing authorized act in unlawful manner
London City Council v Cattermoles Ltd
Facts of London City Council v Cattermoles Ltd
Employee’s job was to move vehicles. He could not drive them. Circumstances led to him driving one of the cars.
In the course of employment, because he was doing an act he was authorized to do.
Contrast with Iqbal v London Transport Exec
Bus conductor – completely prohibited from driving – ended up driving a bus and injuring another. Deemed outside the course of employment.
Unlawful acts
Can still be in course of employment.
Lister v Helsey Hall Ltd
Lister v Helsey Hall
Employer should have been alert to employee abusing students. This case established a ‘close connection test’ to discern extent to which employer should be aware.
Masters Indemnity
Defendant who has paid enough damages to claimant can recover contribution from any other defendant (employee) who is responsible.
Civil Liability and Contributions Act 1978
Problem Question Plan
Define Is the defendant an employee? Has a Tort been committed? Was D acting in the course of employment? Masters Indemnity Defences Conclusion
