Vicarious Liability

Question 1

What is various liability?

Answer 1

‘Independently of personal fault, an employer will be vicariously liable for a tort committed by an employee in the course of employment - Halsbury’s Laws (5th edn, 2015) vol 97, para 767

Question 2

What case states that a prisoner completing paid work in a prison is in a relationship “akin to employment”?

Answer 2

Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10

• prisoner accidentally dropped sack of sick on managers back
• prison had a relation akin to the prisoner as it was not legal employment, it was like employment

Question 3

What case is the modern test for the ‘close connection’ test?

Answer 3

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] UKHL 22
Is there a sufficiently close connection between what the employee was doing and what their employment entails
- warden responsible for providing discipline to children where appropriate
- the warden sexually abused the children
- The warden was disciplining which was in his job role therefore the school was liable

Question 4

What case states that an “employer” may be equally liable for intentional torts?

Answer 4

Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34

• claimant harassed by supervisors
• House of lord said he can sue his supervisor for that

Question 5

What case states the court interprets “close connection” loosely…

Answer 5

Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11

• petrol assistant attacks customer and to keep away from his employers premises
• The court said that the attendant was purporting to act on his employers behalf as he was still wearing his uniform and working his shift and that the claimant should not come pack therefore he is purporting to act on behalf of morrisons
• Whilst the organisation could have done nothing to prevent it, they are still liable under vicarious liability

Question 6

What case states that the courts have traditionally used “control” as the test for employment-like relationships?

Answer 6

Stephenson Jordan & Harrison Ltd v McDonall & Evans [1952] 1 TLR 101 (CA) - Did the defendant have control over what the potential employee did and how they did it?

• Originally the courts would use the ‘control test’ – does the employer have sufficient control over what the employee does. If they do they are an employee and if not they are an independent contractor
• HMRC has a definition for what an employee is
• This does not work today as unlike when the test of control was started as employers are trying to encourage employees to be independent, creative and autonomous

Question 7

What is the modern test for whether a relationship is akin to employment?

Answer 7

Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others [2012] UKSC 56

• claim bought by 170 men who were sexually abused
• The teacher who committed this offence were employed by the school
• The courts said the men could sue the school and institute as the relationship between school and institute was akin to employment which was like employment therefore should be liable for the tort
• For vicarious liability, it’s not about whether the tort was employed by employer, its more of a question whether the relationship was like employment

Question 8

What case states that a school owes its pupils a “non-delegable” duty of care?

Answer 8

Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66

• Council has employed an independent contractor who employed lifeguard and swimming teacher
• The injuries the child suffered was due to the negligence of lifeguard and teacher
• that the school owed a non-delegable duty of care; the school had breached their own duty of care

Question 9

What is a non-delegable duty of care?

Answer 9

Care is taken when contracting the contractor and reasonable care is taken by whoever the care is delegated to