vicarious liability Flashcards
What is vicarious liability?
this is a form of secondary liability
Under vicarious liability. The employee remains primarily liable - the employer is not liable instead but as well as the employee. What are the 3 conditions?
- There must be a relationship between the defendant and torfeaser &
- the Tortfeaser must have committee a tort; and
- These must be a connection between that relationship and the tortfeasor’s tort
What are the 2 tests?
Control test:
how far the employer is able not only to tell the employee what to do but how to do it
Integration test:
how far the employee’s work is integrated into and an integral part of the particular business
What case considers the control test?
Hawley
Hawley considers the control test.
Discuss the case
a door steward, hired to keep order at D’s nightclub, physically assaulted the claimant causing him permanent and serious brain damage. D did not hire their door staff directly but contracted from another company.
HELD:
who was entitled and therefore obliged to control the steward’s act so as to prevent it? held the nightclub vicariously liable
a door steward, hired to keep order at D’s nightclub, physically assaulted the claimant causing him permanent and serious brain damage. D did not hire their door staff directly but contracted from another company.
HELD:
who was entitled and therefore obliged to control the steward’s act so as to prevent it? held the nightclub vicariously liable
Hawley considers the control test.
Discuss the case
What case demonstrates dual employment?
catholic welfare v Christian Schoosl
catholic welfare v Christian Schoosl demonstrates dual employment
discuss case.
claimants were victims of sexual and physical abuse committed by members who were employed as teachers at a residential school. They were employed by the CCWS who did not contest their own vicarious liability but sought contribution from the Institute
HELD:
Both the school and the institute would be held vicariously liable for the abuse the Brothers had committed.
claimants were victims of sexual and physical abuse committed by members who were employed as teachers at a residential school. They were employed by the CCWS who did not contest their own vicarious liability but sought contribution from the Institute
HELD:
Both the school and the institute would be held vicariously liable for the abuse the Brothers had committed.
catholic welfare v Christian Schoosl demonstrates dual employment
discuss case.
Cox v Ministry of Justice considers relationships akin to employment
discuss case
he claimant was working in a prison supervising working prisoners. One of them dropped a bag of rice on her causing injuryThe prison service placed the prisoners in a position where there was a risk of committing a variety of negligent acts.
HELD:
he claimant had been injured as a result of the prisoner’s negligence in carrying on activities assigned to him, and the prison service was therefore vicariously liable to her.
Which case considers relationships skin to employment?
Cox v Ministry of justice
for there to be a trotiious act. An employee must have actually committed a trot for vicarious liability to arise. This applies to the statutory tort of harassment
What case considers this?
Majrowski
for there to be a trotiious act. An employee must have actually committed a trot for vicarious liability to arise. This applies to the statutory tort of harassment
this is considered in Majrowski
discuss case
C brought a claim against his employer in respect of harassing, bullying and intimidating treatment
HELD:
yes liable.
C brought a claim against his employer in respect of harassing, bullying and intimidating treatment
HELD:
yes liable.
for there to be a trotiious act. An employee must have actually committed a trot for vicarious liability to arise. This applies to the statutory tort of harassment
this is considered in Majrowski
discuss case
There has to be 3 things for vicarious liability what are they
1) relationship requirement
2) a tortious act
3) connection requirement
There must be a connection requirement in the course of employment
This is the Salmond test. What are the 2 components?
a) the conduct is authorised by the employer
b) is considered to be a wrongful and authorised mode
Which case demonstrates that where a delivery driver who deviates from his authorised route to visit a friend will be a frolic of his own as a new and independent journey?
Storey v Ashton
Storey v Ashton
what does it hold?
where a delivery driver who deviates from his authorised route to visit a friend will be a frolic of his own as a new and independent journey
Which case considers where there has been an express prohibiton?
Twine v Bean Express
Twine v Bean Express considers where there has been an express prohibition
discuss case
The driver had been expressly forbidden to give lifts.
HELD:
The express prohibition upon giving lifts was not only a prohibition but was also a limiting factor on the scope of the employment. The drver was not acting in the course of his employment.
The driver had been expressly forbidden to give lifts.
HELD:
The express prohibition upon giving lifts was not only a prohibition but was also a limiting factor on the scope of the employment. The drver was not acting in the course of his employment.
Twine v Bean Express considers where there has been an express prohibition
discuss case
Rose v Plenty considered whether there had been an express prohibition
discuss case
A milkman was employed to deliver milk
As part of his employment contract, he was prohibited from having children help him
Nonetheless a young boy did help, and was injured.
HELD :
distinguished from Twine because Rose had been furthering the employee’s duties, keeping Mr Plenty within the course of his employment.
A milkman was employed to deliver milk
As part of his employment contract, he was prohibited from having children help him
Nonetheless a young boy did help, and was injured.
HELD :
distinguished from Twine because Rose had been furthering the employee’s duties, keeping Mr Plenty within the course of his employment.
Rose v Plenty considered whether there had been an express prohibition
discuss case
What does the close connection test hold?
: Vicarious liability arises where the employee’s unlawful conduct was ‘so closely connected with his employment
Which case considers the close connection test?
Lister v halsey Hall
Lister v Hesley Hall considers the close connection test.
discuss case
C’s were sexually abused at a residential school by housemaster.
HELD:
employers were vicariously liable for the housemasters actions
it would be fair and just to hold the employers ;liable because the sexual abuse was interwove with the carrying out by the wardens duties
C’s were sexually abused at a residential school by housemaster.
HELD:
employers were vicariously liable for the housemasters actions
it would be fair and just to hold the employers ;liable because the sexual abuse was interwove with the carrying out by the wardens duties
Lister v Hesley Hall considers the close connection test.
discuss case
