Week 16: Vicarious and Employers' Liability Flashcards
What is vicarious liability and when does it usually arise?
Vicarious liability is when someone is held liable for another person’s actions, usually in an employment context where an employer is liable for an employee’s actions during the course of their employment.
What test for vicarious liability was established in Various Claimants v The Institute of the Brothers of Christian Schools [2012] UKSC 56?
In this case, the court set out a two-stage test: (1) There must be a relationship between the defender and the wrongdoer; (2) The wrongful act must be connected to that relationship and within the course of employment.
What did the court decide about independent contractors in Various Claimants v Barclays Bank [2020] UKSC 13?
The court held that vicarious liability does not apply to independent contractors. The doctor was not seen as an employee of the bank, so the bank was not liable.
What is the Control Test used to establish in vicarious liability?
The Control Test is used to establish whether a person is an employee (creating vicarious liability), rather than an independent contractor under a contract of service.
What are the three parts of the test used in Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] to establish vicarious liability?
The test includes: (1) The wrongdoer was acting on behalf of the defender; (2) Their activity was connected to the defender’s business; (3) The defender created the risk by assigning them the task.
What legal principle was established in Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10 regarding prisoners working in a kitchen?
In Cox v Ministry of Justice, the court held that the Ministry was vicariously liable for a prisoner’s negligent act because he was working under the prison’s control and contributing to its function.
What test is used to determine whether an employee was acting within the scope of their employment for vicarious liability?
The test asks: (1) Did the employer authorise the act? (2) Was the employee doing their job in an unauthorised way? (3) Or did the employee act entirely outside the scope of their employment?
What was decided in Kerby v National Coal Board [1958] SC 514 regarding a miner causing an explosion during a break?
In Kerby, the miner was on a break in a prohibited area and caused an explosion—this was held to be outside the scope of his employment, so the employer was not vicariously liable.
What did the court decide in Century Insurance Co. v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509 regarding scope of employment?
In Century Insurance, the employee was doing authorised work (delivering petrol) but carelessly—still within the course of employment, so the employer was vicariously liable.
What was decided in Mohamud v Morrisons (supermarket) plc [2016] UKSC 11 regarding an assault by an employee?
In Mohamud, the Supreme Court held Morrisons liable because the assault was closely connected to the employee’s role, even though it was a wrongful way of interacting with a customer.
What principle was confirmed in Rose v Plenty [1975] ICR 430 about an employee breaching instructions?
In Rose v Plenty, the court held that an employer can be vicariously liable even if the employee breached rules, as long as the act was done furthering the employer’s business.
What does the ‘close connection’ test mean in the context of vicarious liability?
The ‘close connection’ test means an employer can be vicariously liable for wrongful behaviour that is closely connected to the employee’s role, even if unauthorised.
What did the court decide in Lister v Hensley Hall [2002] 1 AC 215 about abuse by an employee?
In Lister v Hensley Hall, the House of Lords held the employer vicariously liable because the warden’s sexual abuse was closely connected to his caring role, falling within the scope of employment.
What did the court decide in Attorney General of the British Virgin Islands v Hartwell [2004] UKPC 12 about personal vendettas?
In Hartwell, the police officer acted on a personal vendetta by shooting his ex-partner, making it difficult to establish vicarious liability since his actions were far outside the scope of employment.
When can a close connection be established even if the act is wrongful, as in Bernard v Attorney General of Jamaica [2004] UKPC 47?
In Bernard, the police officer shot someone after abusing his authority; the court found a close connection because he was purporting to act in the course of employment, so the Attorney General was vicariously liable.
What is implied into employment contracts regarding safe working conditions?
It is implied that employers must provide safe working conditions as part of their duty of care.
What does Section 16 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 say about employer liability?
Under Section 16 UCTA 1977, an employer cannot exclude or restrict their common law duty of care in a contract.
What did the court decide in Kennedy v Cordia (Services) [2016]?
In Kennedy, the employer was found liable after a home carer slipped on ice, as they failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing about previous incidents.
What principle was confirmed in Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1938]?
Employers cannot delegate their duty of care and must ensure work is carried out safely.
What was held in Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd [1959] regarding safe equipment?
In Davie, the employer was not liable for defective tools sourced from a reputable manufacturer.
What does the Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969, s1 provide?
Under s1, employers are liable if defective equipment injures an employee, even if the defect was due to a third party.
What was held in McGregor v AAH Pharmaceuticals Ltd (1996)?
Employers have a duty to provide and implement a safe system of work.
What duty does Wilson v Merry & Cunningham (1866–69) establish?
Employers have a duty to employ competent staff and ensure they’re qualified for the job.
What was the outcome in Hatton v Sutherland [2004] regarding psychiatric injury?
Employers must take reasonable steps to prevent psychiatric injury; in Hatton, the school failed to support a teacher overwhelmed by workload, breaching duty of care.
