Vicarious Liability

Question 1

E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity

Answer 1

• Claimant alleged that she has been sexually abused when she was being looked after in a home and the bishop of the diocese was vicariously liable.
• The Court has to look for: a relationship akin to employment (i), which was established by a sufficiently close connection so that (ii) it was fair and just to impose liability on D (iii).
• Tortfeasor or Not

Question 2

JGE v Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust

Answer 2

• Claimant alleged that she has been raped by a priest when she was being looked after in a home.
• Being an officeholder, as opposed to an employee, could make the church vicariously liable for the actions of a Priest as the priest’s relationship with the church was sufficiently akin (close) to one of employment and it was fair and just to hold the church vicariously liable.
• Tortfeasor or Not

Question 3

Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffiths

Answer 3

• Hired crane driver negligently injured a person.
• If worker and equipment and hired out, there is the presumption that the original employer is liable. If a worker is hired, the presumption is that the hirer is liable.
• Modified Control Test

Question 4

Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd

Answer 4

• A bouncer assaulted a customer outside a club. He was employed by specialist suppliers.
• The club employed him and was vicariously liable for his actions.
• Modified Control Test

Question 5

Ready Mixed Concrete (South East Ltd. v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance

Answer 5

• Should the company be liable for the payment of Nationa Insurance contributions or a driver?
• Three conditions to be met to show an employment relationship: (i) A relationship similar to employment. (ii) Which was established by a close connection, (iii) It was fair and just to impose liability on the employer.
• Economic Reality or Multiple Test

Question 6

Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants

Answer 6

• Members of the institute sexually abused pupils at the school where they were employed.
• Was the relationship between the institute and its members akin to employer and employee, and was the sexual abuse connected to that relationship in such a way as to give rise to the vicarious liability?
• Both tests were satisfied in this case to make the institute liable.
• Tortfeasor Employee or not

Question 7

Cox v Ministry of Justice

Answer 7

• A prison employee was negligently injured by a prisoner. Was the employer liable for the actions of the prisoner?
• An organisation can be vicariously liable for the actions of its workers even though they do not have a contract of employment with the organisation.
• It isn’t necessary for the organisation to be carrying out a commercial activity or making a profit. It is enough for the organisation to carry on activities in the furtherance of its own interests.
• Heard alongside Mohamud
• Tortfeasor Employee or not

Question 8

Fletcher v Chancery Supplies Ltd.

Answer 8

• T emerged from behind a stationary van colliding with the claimant riding his police mountain bike causing severe leg injuries. Was T’s employer vicariously liable?
• In the absence of explanation why T had left his workplace, there was no sufficient connection between the work and him causing the accident to make T’s employer vicariously liable.
• Tortfeasor Employee or Not

Question 9

Viasystems v Thermal Transfer Ltd.

Answer 9

• The claimants contracted with D1 to install air conditioning in their factory. D1 subcontracted some work to D2. D2 agreed with D3 to provide fitter and fitters’ mates. S was a fitter’s mate who damaged some ducting that came into contact with a sprinkler which fractured causing a flood.
• More than ‘one employer’ could be vicariously liable and the Court had to consider ‘who was entitled and in theory obliged to control the employee’s negligent act in order to prevent it. Here D2 and D3 were each 50% liable.

Question 10

Limpus v London General

Answer 10

• A bus driver caused an accident when racing, despite being instructed by the employer not to race.
• The employer was liable to the injured claimant as the driver was doing what he was employed to do - even against orders.
• Acting Against Orders

Question 11

Rose v Plenty

Answer 11

• A dairy instructed its milkmen not to use child helpers on their milk rounds. A boy was injured when he helped a milkman.
• The dairy was vicariously liable for the milkman’s negligence as the dairy was benefiting from the work done by the boy.
• Acting Against Orders

Question 12

Twine v Beans Express

Answer 12

• The claimant’s husband was killed through the negligence of a driver who had been forbidden to give lifts.
• The employees were not liable as the driver was doing an unauthorised act and the employers were gaining no benefit from him.
• Acting Against Orders

Question 13

Beard v London General Omnibus

Answer 13

• A bus conductor drove a bus without the authority of his employer, injuring the claimant.
• The employer was not liable as the conductor was doing something outside the course of his employment.
• Acting Outside of Employment

Question 14

Lister v Hesley Hall

Answer 14

• The warden of a school for children with emotional difficulties was convicted of sexually assaulting some of the children.
• HL decided there was a close connection between his job and what he did.
• Employee Committing a Criminal Act

Question 15

N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

Answer 15

• An off-duty policeman offered to take a drunk woman to the police but instead committed sexual assaults on her, including rape.
• There was no close connection between the employment and the assaults.
• Employee Committing a Criminal Offence

Question 16

Mattis v Pollock

Answer 16

• A bouncer inflicted serious injuries on a customer and was jailed for committing serious criminal offences.
• The nightclub was vicariously liable for the bouncer’s actions as he was encouraged to use force and his criminal actions were closely connected to his work.
• Employee Committing a Criminal Act

Question 17

Mohamud v Morrison’s Supermarkets plc

Answer 17

• A man employed at D’s petrol station assaulted a customer causing him serious injuries.
• SC decided that as the employee was acting within the field of his employment, the employment was vicariously liable.
• Employee Committing a Criminal Act

Question 18

Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board

Answer 18

• A petrol tanker driver was delivering petrol to a petrol station when he lit a cigarette and threw a lighted match on the ground.
• The employer was liable to pay compensation as the driver was doing his job, even though negligently.
• Employee Committing a Negligent Act

Question 19

Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd.

Answer 19

• Some employees took an authorised break by driving the firm’s van but had an accident. One of the workmen was killed and his widow sued the employer.
• The employers were not liable to pay compensation to the victim of the accident as the workmen were on an unauthorised ‘frolic’ of their own and not acting in the course of employment.
• Employee Acting on a ‘frolic’ of their own.