Vicarious liability cases Flashcards
What is vicarious liability?
Vicarious liability is a legal principle where an employer is held responsible for the negligent actions of an employee performed in the course of their employment.
In the case of ‘Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001)’, what was the central issue?
The central issue was whether the employer was vicariously liable for the sexual abuse committed by an employee.
What was the court’s conclusion in ‘Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001)’?
The court concluded that the employer was vicariously liable, as the employee’s acts were closely connected to his employment.
True or False: In ‘Bazley v Curry (1999)’, the court ruled that the employer was not liable for the employee’s actions.
False
What did the Supreme Court decide in ‘Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (2016)’?
The Supreme Court decided that the employer was vicariously liable for an employee’s violent act against a customer, as it was closely connected to his employment.
Fill in the blank: In ‘Mattis v Pollock (2003)’, the court held that the employer was vicariously liable for the actions of an employee who was _____ during a work-related event.
violent
What was the significance of the case ‘Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board (1942)’?
The case established that an employer could be vicariously liable for an employee’s negligent actions while performing their job duties.
In ‘Parker v British Airways Board (1982)’, what was the main legal issue?
The main issue was whether an employer was liable for a theft committed by an employee while on duty.
True or False: In ‘Parker v British Airways Board (1982)’, the court found the employer liable.
False
What did the court emphasize in ‘Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001)’ regarding vicarious liability?
The court emphasized that the employee’s actions must be connected to their employment for vicarious liability to apply.
What type of act was at issue in ‘Keppel v A & A (2006)’?
The case involved a negligent act by an employee that caused injury to a third party.
What was the outcome of ‘Keppel v A & A (2006)’?
The employer was found vicariously liable for the employee’s negligent actions.
In ‘Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd (2011)’, what was the court’s ruling regarding vicarious liability?
The court ruled that the employer was vicariously liable for the injuries sustained by an employee due to unsafe working conditions.
Fill in the blank: The case ‘Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001)’ involved a _____ committed by an employee.
sexual abuse
What did the case ‘Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffith (1880)’ establish?
It established that an employer could be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor under certain circumstances.
In ‘Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958)’, what was the court’s decision regarding vicarious liability?
The court ruled that the employer was not vicariously liable as the employee’s actions were outside the scope of employment.
True or False: In ‘Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001)’, the court found that the employer had no connection to the employee’s wrongful acts.
False
What principle was highlighted in ‘Harrison v British Gas Trading Ltd (2006)’?
The principle that an employer may be vicariously liable for the actions of an employee if the actions were performed within the scope of their employment.
In ‘N v Chief Constable of Merseyside (2006)’, what was the main issue?
The issue was whether the police were vicariously liable for the actions of their officers during a wrongful arrest.
What was the outcome in ‘N v Chief Constable of Merseyside (2006)’?
The court found that the police were vicariously liable for the officers’ actions.
Fill in the blank: The case of ‘Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust (2002)’ involved issues of _____ liability.
vicarious
What was the outcome of ‘Cox v Ministry of Justice (2016)’ regarding vicarious liability?
The Supreme Court held that the Ministry was vicariously liable for the actions of a prisoner working in a kitchen who caused injury.
What does the term ‘close connection’ refer to in vicarious liability cases?
It refers to the requirement that the employee’s wrongful act must be closely related to their employment for the employer to be held liable.
In ‘Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd (2005)’, what was the court’s ruling?
The court ruled that both the employer and the independent contractor could be held vicariously liable.
True or False: An employer is always vicariously liable for all acts committed by an employee.
False
What case established the ‘frolic of his own’ doctrine?
The case of ‘Storey v Ashton (1869)’ established the doctrine, indicating that an employer is not liable for acts outside the scope of employment.
In ‘Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001)’, what was the employee’s role?
The employee was a delivery driver whose actions led to an accident.
What was the importance of ‘R v A (2001)’ regarding vicarious liability?
It clarified the extent to which employers could be held liable for the acts of their employees in criminal contexts.
