Vicarious Liability (chapter 24) Flashcards
Mersey Docks & harbour board v coggins and griffiths (1947) - crane driver
. Crane driver was hired out by employers, to stevedores who loaded and unloaded ships
. Due to negligence, driver injured a person at work
. In their contract, harbour board continued to pay his wages and retained power to sack him
. Court decided:
- terms in any hire contract are not decisive
- permanent employer is presumed liable, unless contrary is proved
. If employee is hired out with equipment, interference is not as strong as hirer may not have control how equipment can be used
Hawley v Luminer leisure (2006) - nightclubs
. Bouncer was supplied to nightclubs by specialist supplier
. He assaulted a customer outside defendants club
. Supplier went into liquidation, so injured customer claimed club was vicariously liable
. Court decided as club exercised control over bouncer in how he should work, it employed him and was vicariously liable for his actions
Ready mixed concrete Ltd v minister of pensions and national insurance (1968) - company vehicles
. Should company be liable for payment of national insurance contributions for drivers who drove company vehicles carrying company logo?
. Drivers brought vehicles from company and had to maintain them
. Test was established for employment relationship:
1. Employee agrees to provide work or skill in return for wage
2. Employee expressly or impliedly accepts work will be subject to control of employer
3. All considerations in contract are consistent with there being employment contract
. According to these tests, driving in this case weren’t liable
Limpus v London general (1862) - bus drivers
. Employer instructed bus drivers not to race other company bus drivers
. Driver caused accident when racing
.employer was liable to injured claimant as driver was doing what he was employed to do even against orders
Century insurance v Northern Ireland road transport board (1942) - petrol tanker
. Petrol tanker was delivered to a garage when he lit a cigarette and there a match on the ground
. Caused an explosion, destroyed several cars and damaged houses
. Drivers employer was vicariously liable as driver was doing his job, even though negligent
Twine v beans express (1946) - negligent driver
. Claimants husband was killed through negligent driver who was forbidden to give lifts
. Instruction was supported by notices on side of van
. Employers were not vicariously liable, as driver was doing an unauthorised act and employers were gaining no benefit from it
Lister v Hersley hall (2001) - warden
. Warden of school for children had emotional difficulties was onvicted of sexually assaulting children
. House of Lords decided there was close connection between his Job and what he did
. The wardens employers were liable
Morrisons supermarket v various claimants (2020) - unhappy employee
. Unhappy employee uploaded personal details of colleagues
. Employee was imprisoned, but colleagues also sued employee and employer for breach of statutory duty
. Supreme Court considered what ‘close connection’ meant and stated employers would not be liable for a wrongful act, whether or not the act promotes the employers business or is an effort to deliberately harm
