VL: IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT? (Close connection test) Flashcards
Lister v Hesley Hall
Facts?
Defendant company ran local authority children’s home – vicariously liable for sexual abuse committed by a house father.
Principle? Actions found to be in course of employment – his role was to look after children and he was not supervised. Also highlighted importance of close connection between employee’s duties and negligent act.
Mattis v Pollock
Facts?
Bouncer at London nightclub stabbed a patron after previous disagreement. Employer previously encouraged him to use force to break up violence.
Principle? Attack considered to be in course of employment. Stabbing represented culmination of incident which started within club.
JGE v Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust & Various Claimants v Institute of the Brothers of Christian Schools
Close connection between role of priests and what they were supposed to be doing and tort committed.
D placed abusers in pastoral role which allowed them to access children and carry out abuse.
Policy driven.
Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets
Facts?
Morrison’s petrol station employee abusively told customer to leave then attacked him on forecourt.
Principle?
Ejecting customer and following attack = continuous action (Lister) connected to employee’s work of supervising petrol station.
Tort was committed on employer’s premises during working hours.
Morrisons entrusted him – responsible for his abuse of trust, not personal vengeance act.
Fletcher v Chancery Lane Supplies
Facts?
Policeman cycling collided with employee of defendant – pedestrian crossing not looking properly. D had shop and offices on each side of road. Wearing company uniform – logo and work boots. Near shop where he worked.
Principle? No close connection. Impossible to know if crossing road was sufficiently connected to tortfeasor’s work at the time to make it reasonable to find employer vicariously liable – unknown why he was crossing road.
