Vicarious Liability AO3

Question 1

What are the strengths of Vicarious Liability?

Answer 1

-Employer will be liable for damage that occurs in course of employment, but not liable if the tf was acting on their own frolic, this is fair
-This tort is fair and just for the C as the employer will have more money than an employee and will therefore be in a better position be able to pay compensation
-Courts protect claimants by allowing them to claim against the employer

Question 2

What are the weaknesses of Vicarious Liability?

Answer 2

-Heavily criticised for being unfair on employers
-Law is inconsistent as multiple tests have been delevoped by the courts over time (modern, economic and control)

Question 3

Explain the evaluation: Heavily criticised for being unfair on employers

Answer 3

-This is because the employer is sued for actions and damages that they have no control over. WHich goes against the basic principle of law that a person should only be liable if they are at fault
-Employer is no where near scene of the tort, this is unfair
-Limpus v London General omnibus
-It can be fair to find employer liable
-It is the law that businesses must have insurance, this is fair

Question 4

Explain the evaluation: Law here is inconsistent as multiple tests have been developed by the courts over time, such as the economic, control and modern tests

Answer 4

-This is because, Cox v Ministry of Justice stated the modern test established in CBC should be the only test for intentional, but the economic and control can still be used for unintentional.
-This impacts lay people, confusing
-Different judges can apply different test same case
-Inconsistency, lay people, advising parties case
-Common law test - there has been no act of parliament or guidance from parliament (overstepping constitutional role)

Question 5

Explain the evaluation: The employer will be liable for damage that occurrs in the course of employment, but not liable if acting on own frolic, this is fair

Answer 5

-This is because employer will not be liable if tf was on their own frolic, fair as the tf was not doing the job that they were employed to do so, the employer should not be liable for these actions
-Employer is not liable if it is personal vendetta, this fair
-Intentional torts, employers can now be liable if tort/criminal act is closely connected to employment, fair
-Close connection test is vague, no real definition of what it means, judges can abuse
-Led to employers being found liable in cases where they traditionally would not have been

Question 6

Explain the evaluation: This tort is fair and just for the C as the employer will have more money than an employee and will therefore be in a better position to be able to pay compensation

Answer 6

-The employer usually will have insurance to cover damages
-Far that business pays compensation
-Better for the C to claim the employer and not the employee
-Civil Liability (contribution) act 1978 fair
-If employer takes all reasonable steps and provides training, they are still liable (unfair?)
-VL goes against basic principle of law
-Could be argued the TF should be person at fault

Question 7

Explain the evaluation: The courts protect claimants by allowing them to claim against the employer

Answer 7

-This is because the modern test allows the courts to find a relationship that is akin to employment
-This covers lots of employment relationships and not just traditional contracts
-Cox v MOJ - this was fair for the C
-The courts are really flexible and likely to find the employer liable, this is unfair
-Should the employer be liable if no contract of employment
-Cox V MOJ - why could this be unfair for employer