#Exam 2 (2)- Vicarious liability

Question 1

What is the definition of vicarious liability

Answer 1

It is when an employer is liable for an the Torts that have been committed by an employee

Question 2

What are the two things which must be met in VL

Answer 2

The person who committed the Tort is an employee as opposed to an independent contractor
And he or she is acting in the course of his or her employment

Question 3

What tests can be used to test whether someone is an employer is an employee

Answer 3

Control test
Integration test
Economic reality or multiple test

Question 4

What is a control test

Answer 4

How much control does the the employer have over the employee

Question 5

What is the integration test

Answer 5

If a persons work is fully integrated into the business he or she will be considered an employee

Question 6

What is the economic reality or multiple test

Answer 6

Looks at whole situation
Including:ownership of tools, equipment or uniform, payment of wages, deductions of wages, job description and taking orders

Question 7

When will an employer be liable

Answer 7

For a criminal act or an employee when there is a close connection between crime and what their role was
for an employee who is doing their job but acts against order
if employee does a job negligently

Question 8

when will an employer not be liable

Answer 8

when an employee is on a frolic of their own

tort of an independant contractor

Question 9

what act sets out how an employer can claim money back from tort committing employee

Answer 9

civil liability contribution act 1978

Question 10

what happened in the case of mersey docks & harbour board v coggins and griffths

Answer 10

hired crane driver negligently injures someone

LP- when someone is hired to company, hirer is liable

Question 11

what happened in the case of hawley v luminar leisure

Answer 11

bouncer assaults customer. employed by specialist company

LP- club hired him so they were liable

Question 12

what happened in the case of Ready mixed concrete v minister of pensions and national insurance

Answer 12

shows three conditions to be met to show employment relationship

1) relationship was similar
2) established close connection
3) fair and just to impose on employer

Question 13

what happened in the case of E v English provinence of our lady charity / JGE V trustees of the Portsmouth roman catholic diocesan trust

Answer 13

claimant had been sexually abused while being looked after. showed close connection. diocese liable

Question 14

COX V MOJ shows

Answer 14

prisoner is negligent to prison employee. prison liable still as there doesn’t have to be contact of employment. no need for commercial success but just for own interest

Question 15

fletcher v chancery supplies ltd

Answer 15

man crashes into police officer injuring him. company not liable as there was no explanation for him driving

Question 16

viasystems v thermal transfer

Answer 16

more than one employer can be vicariously liable for a tort

Question 17

limpus v london general

Answer 17

bus driver in accident due to racing. even though ordered not to race by employer still liable because doing what employed to do

Question 18

rose v plenty

Answer 18

dairy instructs milkmen not to get help off children. milkmen ignore and child gets injured. diary guilty as benefitting from the work

Question 19

twine v beans express

Answer 19

person was doing unauthorised act and employers gained no benefit from it- not liable

Question 20

beard v london general omnibus company

Answer 20

bus conductor drove bus without permission. company not liable as out of course of employments

Question 21

lister v hesley hall

Answer 21

warden of boys school abused children. HOL held that there was close connection between the job and the abuse

Question 22

N v chief constable of mersey side police

Answer 22

off duty police officer takes women saying he will take her to police station but instead rapes her. no close connection between work and the assaults

Question 23

why was the club liable in mattis v pollock

Answer 23

they had encouraged the use of force in this case

Question 24

mohamud v morrisons

Answer 24

man assaults customer. sc held that was acting in the field of employment. -job was to deal with customers

Question 25

century insurance v NI road transport board

Answer 25

driver doing job but negligently- employer required to pay compensation. man lights cigarette at petrol station causing explosion.

Question 26

Hilton v Thomas Burton

Answer 26

workers take unauthorised break in work-van and crash and someone dies
LP-employers not liable as they are on frolic of their own.

Question 27

why is vicarious liability fair

Answer 27

more likely someone will get compensation
employers have insurance
justified as employer benefitting from work
fair on victims ie in lister and mohumad
encourages greater care

Question 28

why is vicarious liability unfair

Answer 28

contradicts idea of fault based liability
inconsistencies with road accident cases
rogue employees understand there is little chance of them being sued
rare that an employee will pay an employer back