Vicarious Liability- Chapter 5 Flashcards
Doctrine of vicarious liability
Imposed liability on one party for the wrongful acts of another.
3 requirements for liability to an employer
A tort has been committed
It has been committed by an employee
The person who committed the tort was acting in the court of their employment or involved in an activity which was closely connected.
3 tests to distinguish who is an employee or a contractor
Control test - how much control does the employer have over them. Yearns v Noakes
Organisation test- is employee part of an
Organisation- Cassidy v Minster of health
Multiple test- court looks at all aspects. Ready mix concrete v minster of pensions (Hall v Lorimer- no single test to establish if a person is employee or self employed)
Carmichael v National
Power - temp workers
Employer must be bound to offer and the worker bound to accept work.
Akin to employment
An individual is akin to employment as in such cases it could be fair to hold that an organisation is vicariously liable for the individuals wrong doing.
Catholic child welfare society test
Two tests
Whether the relationship between claimant and defendant was in that was capable of giving rise to vicarious liability
The closeness of the connection between the individual and the organisation and the individuals act or omission
2 employers deemed vicarious liable ..
Permanent employer will be liable for the acts and omissions of the employer unless they can show they passed the control over to second employer. Mersey docks v coffins Griffith
Employer is only responsible for acts which employer performs in the course of their employment. This includes …
Wrongful act authorised by their employer
Lawful act authorised by employer but carried out in a wrongful way
An act which is closely connected to the tortfeasors role in the organisation
Are employers liable for frolic of the employees
They will not be liable for acts that go beyond the employees employment. Hilton v Thomas Burton
What is the close connection test
A test which decides whether acts were so closely connected with his employment that I would be fair and just to hold employers vicariously liable though employee wasn’t ‘doing their job’ at the time of the act. Lister v Healey hall
Are employers liable for criminal acts of employees
Generally no unless the employer expressively to commit the act or they were doing something authorised to do so
If an employee is on loan does or is a contractor does the organisation have liability for them.
No, unless they have control over their duties.
