vicarious liablity

Question 1

definition

Answer 1

identify the claim

vl is imposing liabilty ons osomeone other than the tortfeasor

tortfeaser is someone who commits the act and causes the harm

Question 2

req 1: was a tort comiited

Answer 2

must be proved that a tort has been comitted, that there is a tortfeasser

eg negligence or battery

Question 3

req 2: occupier will only be laible for torts committed by one of their employees, not by an indepemdant comytravtor

Answer 3

mut be proved tat the tortfeaser id an employee of the d and that tehyr are not an independant contractor
case: barcalays:
d not liabel for torts comitted by an independant contractor

tests: control( how much control employer has pver employees work)

intrgreation:(is employee fullt imtergrated into teh wokrk)

econ reality/multiple test(most common);
case: portrayed in ready mixed concrete:
3 questiosns asked:
did tortfeaser wokr for money?
did employer excserise control over the employee?
were other terms of contract consistent with terms of service?
multple: tax/nic/salary payed monthly/hours
decided: drivers not employees

however akin to employment:
cox : prsoner and prison,
1. was tortfeaser integral in ds busineses for benefit of business
2.was harm occured by d assigning thenactivity
decided:prson lible, dont have to be carrying out a commercial activity or making a profit

Question 4

req 3: was tort comiitted during course of employmnet

Answer 4

to be liable tortfeaser had to have comitted a tort whilst on course of employment and not on a frolic of his own, if t on a frolic of hiw own nit vl
authorized act test used to prove claim for negligence (salamond test)

joel v morrison: must not be on a frloic of his own

e.g employer liable for wrongful acts expressly authorised by empolyer
eg; poland v parr: employee assualted a boy who he believed was stealing from his employers lorry
decision:employer vl as employee was protecting truck as inzstructed so

or authorised acts carried out in an unathroised way:
eg;
limpus v london (disobediant employee): bus driver caused accifent whilst racing despite being told not to
d: employer liable as still doing job despite being against orders

beard v london: bus CONDUCTOR drove bus negligently injuring v
d: employer not liable as conductor acted outside course of his employment as he was employed to collect fares

century insurance v northern ireland : (careless/negligent employment): negligent driver was delivering petrol to garage, lit a cigareete, threw a match on the floor causing an explosion
d: employer liable as driver was doing his job even if negligently

rose v plenty( employee giving unauthorised lifts) : instructed not to use children helpers on dairyfarms, boy injured on rounds due to drivers negligent driving
d: dairy farm vl for milkmans negligent driving as it was suggested dairy benefiited from work of the boy

twine v bean: c husband killed thru neglogence of driver who was forbidden to give lifts
d: employer not liable as driver was doing an unathorized act and employer did not benefit from it

hilton v thomas burton: employers working on sight took unauthorized break in van to a cafe , had an accident and one man died
d: not liable as on a frolic of their own, unauthorized break

close connection test : rare to find vl liable for crime as seen as unathroized but
lister v lesley hall: warden sexually assulated girl with emtional diffuvylties at sch
d:employer held vl, said to be employer held laible if there is sufficent proximity between acts of employee and employmnet

mattis v pollock: bouncer employted to keep order outside night club, syabbed a custmoer with a knife
d: sufficently close rs between jpb and crime comitted , club vl as force was encouraged on the job

mohammed: 2 questions msut be asked , 1. what is the nature of the job entrusted to the tortfeaser
2.is there sufficent close connecvtion between position in which tortfeaser is employed and wrongful conduct to make ir right for d rto be held liable

n v chief policeman use unoform to take advantage of a women pretending to be woeeried about her, sexually asuulated her,
d; no close connection between employmeny and assualt

morrison:emplotyee leaked persomal data of co workers for revenge
d:no vl, act did not have close connection to the job