vicarious liability

Question 1

What is vicarious liability?

Answer 1

this is a form of secondary liability

Question 2

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?

Answer 2

1. There must be a relationship between the defendant and torfeaser &
2. the Tortfeaser must have committee a tort; and
3. These must be a connection between that relationship and the tortfeasor’s tort

Question 3

What are the 2 tests?

Answer 3

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

Question 4

What case considers the control test?

Answer 4

Hawley

Question 5

Hawley considers the control test.

Discuss the case

Answer 5

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

Question 6

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

Answer 6

Hawley considers the control test.

Discuss the case

Question 7

What case demonstrates dual employment?

Answer 7

catholic welfare v Christian Schoosl

Question 8

catholic welfare v Christian Schoosl demonstrates dual employment
discuss case.

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

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.

Answer 9

catholic welfare v Christian Schoosl demonstrates dual employment
discuss case.

Question 10

Cox v Ministry of Justice considers relationships akin to employment
discuss case

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Which case considers relationships skin to employment?

Answer 11

Cox v Ministry of justice

Question 12

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?

Answer 12

Majrowski

Question 13

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

Answer 13

C brought a claim against his employer in respect of harassing, bullying and intimidating treatment
HELD:
yes liable.

Question 14

C brought a claim against his employer in respect of harassing, bullying and intimidating treatment
HELD:
yes liable.

Answer 14

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

Question 15

There has to be 3 things for vicarious liability what are they

Answer 15

1) relationship requirement
2) a tortious act
3) connection requirement

Question 16

There must be a connection requirement in the course of employment
This is the Salmond test. What are the 2 components?

Answer 16

a) the conduct is authorised by the employer

b) is considered to be a wrongful and authorised mode

Question 17

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?

Answer 17

Storey v Ashton

Question 18

Storey v Ashton

what does it hold?

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Which case considers where there has been an express prohibiton?

Answer 19

Twine v Bean Express

Question 20

Twine v Bean Express considers where there has been an express prohibition

discuss case

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

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.

Answer 21

Twine v Bean Express considers where there has been an express prohibition

discuss case

Question 22

Rose v Plenty considered whether there had been an express prohibition
discuss case

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

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.

Answer 23

Rose v Plenty considered whether there had been an express prohibition
discuss case

Question 24

What does the close connection test hold?

Answer 24

: Vicarious liability arises where the employee’s unlawful conduct was ‘so closely connected with his employment

Question 25

Which case considers the close connection test?

Answer 25

Lister v halsey Hall

Question 26

Lister v Hesley Hall considers the close connection test.

discuss case

Answer 26

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

Question 27

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

Answer 27

Lister v Hesley Hall considers the close connection test.

discuss case