Vicarious Liability Evaluation

Question 1

Claimant more likely to be compensated for their loss

Answer 1

Employee may not have means to pay themselves. Employers will have insurance to cover incidents - if they claim, premium increases = deterrent from having poor employment practices = better recruitment. CHRISTIAN BROTHERS - 170 claimants wouldn’t be compensated for the abuse if individuals had to pay

Question 2

Employees are encouraged to maintain high standards in the workplace

Answer 2

Fear of being sued = employers more likely to:
• Discipline staff
• Provide training
• Supervise effectively
• Employ good staff to begin with
D benefits from TF work = fair to accept responsibility for actions/interest of justice
LISTER v HESLEY HALL = more likely to carry out rigorous checks/supervision of wardens
Avoids employers using excuses of being unaware. Dangerous precedent to set.

Question 3

Unfair on employers - contradicts concept of fault based liability

Answer 3

Sometimes blameless employers - liable for unpredictable acts of employee - close connection. MOHAMUD v MORRISONS - no link between job and punching customer, but defendant still liable.
Some employers spent time + money on training and recruitment - unfair they’re still punished.
Doesn’t deter TF - they aren’t the ones who have to pay compensation - no need to alter behaviour

Question 4

Defendants punished for actions they may have sanctioned

Answer 4

TF may have committed tort/crime to get job done quickly for benefit of defendant - only right defendant is reprimanded for this.
ROSE v PLENTY - TF told not to let children on, but did anyway. D needs to do more to stop this.
Fair to place financial burden on one creating the risk