Vicarious Liability A01 Flashcards
Most commonly between
Employer + employee
Two part test
1) was the person who committed the tort was employed by the defendant?
2) was this tort was committed in the course of employment?
employment status
3 tests
Control Test
Integration Test
Economic Reality Test
only one has to be established (more than 1 may apply)
Control test (cases)
person = employee
IF
the employer has control over the way the work is done
Armes v Nottinghamshire Council
UBER v Aslam
Integration test
a person is an employee
IF
their work is an integral part of the business
Stevensons v McDonald
Economic Reality Test
contract OF service = person is more likely to be an employee
WHEREAS
contract FOR services = person will most likely be an independent contractor
Ready Mix Concrete v Minister of Pensions
Akin to employment
If none of the employee tests apply
Tests established in
VC v Catholic Welfare Society
Akin part 1
If the employer is more likely to have the resources to compensate the claimant than the person who committed the tort
Akin part 2
If the tort was caused by activities done on the employer’s behalf
Akin part 3
If the person causing the claimant’s loss is likely a part of the defendant’s business activities
Akin part 4
If the employer created the risk of the injury or loss by employing the person
Akin part 5
If the employer is likely to have some control over the person causing the claimants loss
Independent contractor (case)
The defendant will not be vicariously liable for torts committed by an independent contractor
UNLESS
their work is akin to employment - Barclays Bank v VC
Acting in the court of employment
Employer = liable
( even if they do something that is unauthorised, expressly forbidden, unlawful or careless)
Course of Employment 1
Authorised act in a careless way
- Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport
Course of Employment 2
Employer authorises an unlawful act
Course of Employment 3
Authorised act in an unauthorised way
- Limpus v London
-Weir v Merseyside Police
Course of Employment 4
Expressly Forbidden but for the benefit of the employer - Rose v Plenty
Frolic of his own (case)
Employer not liable if acts are unrelated to their employment (employer derives no benefit) - Hilton v Thomas Burton
Close connection
Employers can be vicariously liable for the employee’s torts if they are ‘closely connected’ to the acts that the employee is authorised to do on behalf on the employer’ - Lister v Hesley Hall & VC v Catholic Child Welfare Society
Morrison v VC
no connection between the leaking of customers details and the employee’s work at Morrisons as it did not form part of his field of activities
Employer found VL may… (case)
sue the employee to recover some or all of the damage - Lister v Romford Ice
