Vicarious Liability Flashcards
What is vicarious liability and when will the employer be liable P137
Where a third person has legal responsibility for the unlawful actions of another. It is commonly seen in the workplace where the employer is responsible for the employee who acted in the course of employment.
What is the first thing that has to be considered PP
This is whether the person who committed the tort is an employee.
Who is an employee - Control Test PP
In the case Mersey Docks v Coggins & Griffiths (1947)
A crane driver was employed and paid by M but hired out to C.
The contract said that C should be treated as the employer.
The court said:
Any contract term specifying who the employer is, is not decisive.
The court must ask who has the power to tell the operator how he should work.
The employer was Mersey Docks as they trained and hired the driver.
Who is the employee - the economic reality test or multiple test PP
Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions (1968)
Drivers for R had to buy their own lorries from Ready Mix and maintain them and could choose whether or not to work. They were not employees as R did not have sufficient control over them. The case established these tests:
An employee will more likely have tools and equipment provided for them rather than owing their own
An employee is more likely to receive a ‘salary’ whereas a contractor will generally receive payment for the whole ‘job’
An employee will have tax and national insurance contributions deducted from their pay.
How much control does the individual have over what work they do and when?
Who is an employee - integration test P138
This was not on the PowerPoint but said by Chichester University as they held the lesson and in the book.
The case Stevenson Jordan and Harrison Ltd V McDonald and Evans (1969) established this test.
It provides that a worker will be an employee if his work is fully integrated into the business. If a persons work is only accessory to the business, the person is not an employee.
Who is an employee - close in character to an employee relationship PP
JGE v Trustees of Portsmouth (2012)
(A priest accused of sexual abuse of a child)
The priest was not employed by the church but his relationship was akin to employment. This was based on the level of supervision and control the church had of his activities. This was also shown in Cox V MOJ (2016) from what Chichester Uni said on the 20.10.20 but do not have to memorise this second case.
More examples of whether someone is an employee PP
A bouncer was employed by an agency and sent to work at a nightclub, he was told how to work by the nightclub. Was the club vicariously liable?
•Yes, because they could control how he worked (Hawley v Luminar)
• A religious organisation sent teachers to a number of schools to teach principles of Christian life. They had contracts of employment with the school. The teachers abused a large number of children. Was the religious organisation vicariously liable?
•Yes, because the organisation controlled where and how the teachers worked (Catholic Child Welfare Society)
•A prisoner negligently dropped a heavy bag on a member of prison staff. Was the prison vicariously liable for the acts of the prisoner?
•Yes, because the relationship was close in character to employment (Cox v MOJ).
Acting in the course of employment and vicarious liability PP
If you were acting in the course of employment then your employer WILL be vicariously liable for your actions in tort
•If you are found to NOT have been acting in the course of your employment then your employer will NOT be liable for your actions in tort.
Doing authorised acts in an unauthorised manner PP and P143
Limpus V London General (1862)
LGO instructed its drivers not to race in buses when collecting passengers
•A driver failed to follow these orders and injured a passenger
•LGO were vicariously liable as the driver was still doing his job but doing it in an unauthorised manner.
Doing unauthorised acts P143 and PP
Beard V London General Omnibus (1900)
LGO employed drivers and conductors.
•A conductor injured a passenger whilst driving the bus
•LGO were not vicariously liable because that was not his job. He was expressly forbidden to drive the buses.
Case showing an employee committing a negligent act P144
If the employee does a job badly, the employer can be liable for his actions which cause injury to another.
Century Insurance V Northern Ireland Road Transport Board (1942)
A petrol tanker driver was delivering petrol to a petrol station when he lit a cigarette and threw a lit match on the ground. This caused an explosion which destroyed several cars and some houses. The employer was liable to pay the compensation as the driver was doing his job, even though negligently.0
Hilton V Thomas Burton (1961) PP and P145
If the employer causes injury or damage to another while doing something, or at the time, outside the area or time of their work, the employe will not be liable.
In this case 2 workers took a vehicle for an unauthorised tea break, they had an accident and someone was injured.
The employer was not liable as the the employees were on a frolic of their own
Lister V Hesley Hall (2001) P144 and PP
If the employer commits a crime during his work the employer may be liable to the victim of the crime if there is a close connection between the crime and what the employee is employed to so.
A warden was employed at a boarding school and was responsible for day-to-day running of the school, discipline of the boys, and supervision and care after school hours. He sexually abused a number of the boys
They employer was liable as this was an unauthorised way of doing his job.
Case about vicarious liability if the employer is benefiting P143
In the case Rose V Plenty (1976), a diary instructed its milkmen to not use child helpers on their milk round. One milkmen did use a boy to help him but the boy was injured on the round due to the milkmen’s negligent driving of the electric milk float.
The diary was vicariously liable for the milkmen’s Negligence as one judge suggested that the dairy was benefiting from the work done by the boy.
Mohamud V Morrison’s Supermarkets (2016) PP
M was assaulted by someone who worked in a supermarket petrol station, he suffered GBH
•The Supreme Court considered that his actions were so closely linked to his role based on the location and the fact it was within working hours, that his employer WAS vicariously liable.
