vicarious liability Flashcards
what two tests determine whether the employer is vicariously liable
is the worker an employee or independent contractor?
is the employee acting in the course of employment?
what are the three criteria’s that will be satisfied if there was a contract of service following the RMC cases
1) that a person agrees to provide work and skill for the employer in return for payment
2) that he/she is subject to the employer’s control
3) that the other terms of the contract are consistent with the existence of a contract of service.
explain the case of cox
F: Cox while employed as the catering manager at a prison in swansea was injured in an accident caused by the negligence of a prisoner. Cox was required to supervise prisoners who served in the prison kitchen. 1 prisoner, against instructions attempted to carry sacks of rice and dropped them
H: Relationships that are akin to that between employer and employee are capable of giving rise to VL
explain the case of Barclays bank plc v various claimants
bank asked a DR to carry out medical examinations on job applicants. he also worked in local hospitals and organisations. young women came forward to allege the dr had sexually assaulted them he was free to refuse referrals had his own insurance and was ‘in business on his own account’
H: bank wasn’t vicariously liable for his actions.
what did Lady Hale draw a distinction between
those ‘carrying out their own business on his own accent’ (independent contractors) for whom there would be no liability for the D and those in a relationship ‘akin to employment’ for which liability would be imposed.
what 5 incidents were created by Lord Philips after Christian brothers
- if the employer would be in a better position to compensate the employee (and was insured)
- the tort would have been committed as a result of activity being taken by the employee on behalf of the employer
- employee’s activity was likely to be part of the employer’s business activity
- the employer, by engaging the employee would have created the risk of the tort committed by the employee
- the employee would, to a greater or lesser degree, have been under the control of the employer.
explain the case of Limpus v London general omnibus co
F: a bus driver had been given written instructions not to race with or obstruct other buses. he disobeyed this order and while racing another bus he caused a collision with the claimants bus which damaged it.
H: he was not on a frolic of his own he was authorised to drive buses he was doing it negligently = VL
explain the case of Iqbal v london transport executive
F: a bus conductor, who had been previously prohibited by his employer from driving, disobeying his employer’s instructions and drove a bus for a short-distance at a garage. in doing so, he hit and injured a fellow employee
H: LTE not VL for negligence of a bus conductor who was expressly prohibited from driving buses (frolic)
explain the case of Hilton v Thomas burton (rhodes) ltd
F: four workmen were out in their employer’s van, which they were allowed to use for travelling to work on a demolition site out in the country. after half a day’s work, they decided to stop and go to a cafe seven miles away for tea. they were nearly there when they changed their minds and started back again. on their return journey there was an accident, and one of them was killed through the negligent driving of another
H: the men were not acting on the course of their employment. they were on a frolic of their own
explain the case of Century insurance v northern ireland road transport board
F: the defendant’s employee, a petrol tanker driver was unloading petrol from his tanker to underground storage in the claimant’s garage when he struck a match to light his cigarette and dropped the lighted match on the ground this caused an explosion endangering the claimants property
H: wrong act was during a part of his job = VL
explain the case of Lister v Hesley hall
F: the claimants were boys with emotional difficulties who had been abused by their warden and employee of the defendants
H: there was a sufficiently close connection between the work the warden had carried out. Also the tort constituted a particular risk that was inextricably linked to the employer’s business
explain the case of Mohamud v WM morrisons supermarkets
F: a petrol station attendant assaulted a customer who argued the employer was liable.
H: the lister test was applied, the SC decided that as the employee was acting within the ‘field of activities’ entrusted by the employer so they were VL. there was a sufficient connection between what he has been employed to do and wrongful conduct.
explain the case of morrisons v various claimants
F: auditor (Skelton) employed by the company’s internal audit team and following a minor disciplinary matter harboured a grudge against the company. he copied data of morrisons employees and shard it publicly.
H:CA and trial judge followed Muhammed test- found a sufficiently close connection between S’s actions and his employment. Lord Reid= S was on a frolic of his own and his disclosure of the data didn’t form part of his ‘field of activities.’
what was held in Hall v Lorimer
freelance TV technician but employee for purposes of tax law
what was held in viasystmes v thermal transfer
loaned employee so joint liability
