Vicarious Liability (Reverse)

Question 1

Facts:

1. Driver delivering petrol tanker on behalf of employer and while waiting for oil to be discharged, he lit cigarette with matches.
2. Match thrown negligently and caused explosion
3. CLM sued for vicarious liability but DEF argues that he was not working in course of his employment, when he lit the cigarette ( taking a break) and caused the explosion.

Held:

1. The DEF was vicariously liable for negligent act of its worker. 2. Although lighting cigarette was not part of what he was employed to do, it was an act that was purely incidental to his job which he was doing at the time of the accident.
2. He was still doing his job, it just so happens he was taking a short break from it.

Answer 1

Century insurance v NI road transport

Question 2

Facts:
1. A driver raced his bus from stop to stop to arrive before competitors. 2. The employers received complaints so warned driver, which led to driver to drive carefully for few weeks. 3. However after declining number of passengers, the driver started driving recklessly again and caused an accident that injured a passenger (CLM). 4. CLM sued for vicarious liablity but DEF rgued that the employees action were of their own as they had been instructed not to do so.

Held:
1. The employer was held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their employee even though they had forbidden the driver to race his bus. 2. This is due to the fact the driver was acting in the course of his employment (driving the bus) at the time of the collision which was what he was employed to do.

Answer 2

Limpus v London Omnibus

Question 3

Facts:
1. Bus conductor always fancied to become a bus driver, so tried to turn the bus while actual bus driver went on toilet break. 2. The conductor reversed bus into CLM without looking causing injury. 3. CLM sued for vicarious liability for negligence of the conductor.

Held:

1. Employee had acted negligently but company was not vicariously liable because the employee did not commit the negligence in the course of his employment.
2. The employee was employed as a conductor and not a driver. 3. hence only the employee was liable, not the company.

Answer 3

Beard v London Omnibus

Question 4

Facts:

1. Employee/ Van driver who was on night shift, met friend who missed her bus home, so he offered her a lift.
2. However employee negligently caused accident and injured the CLM 3. CLM sued employer claiming he was vicariously liable for the employees negligence.

Held:

1. At the time of accident, the employee was NOT acting in course of his employment. Employer was not Vicariously liable. 2. The friend house was not on that route that should be taken and he had deviated substantially from the route for reasons not connected with his job.
2. Hence was on a “frolic of his own”

Answer 4

Storey v Ashton

Question 5

Facts:

1. As an incentive, employer permitted employees to take extended lunch break on Fridays
2. They usually went to get food 8 miles using firms mini bus. 3. One day driver of bus had been drinking and lost control causing injury to 1 employee. 4. CLM sued company for vicarious liability.

Held:
1. Employer was not liable as employees were on frolic of their own at time of accident. 2. Their trip was for a social purpose and by no means connected to job they were employed to do. 3. Employer was not liable just because he had consented to it.

Answer 5

Hilton v Thomas

Question 6

Facts:

1. Warden of care home, housing children with emotional difficulties sexually assaulted the children which left them with serious psychological and physical harm. 2. The victim bought tort claims against the employer using vicarious liability .

Held:

1. Employer was held vicariously liable for the abuse committed by warden. 2. Although warden committed something that he was not employed to do, there was a very close connection between acts of abuse and work he was employed to do.
2. The sexual assaults all carried out at times when the employed should have been caring for children.

Answer 6

Lister v Hesley Hall

Question 7

Facts:

1. Farther and Son worked in same company, Son reversed into farther injuring him accidental.
2. The farther sued for vicarious liability for the employer and won the Company was required to pay a substantial amount of money.
3. However, the company then sued son for breach of contract.

Held:

1. The employee (son) was in breach of contract of employment for failing to take care while carrying out his job. 2. The employer was therefore entitled to recover the loss it had suffered by being held vicariously liable for their employees negligent actions.

Answer 7

Lister v Romford Ice