Tort - General Negligence - Employers Liability/Vicarious Liability Flashcards Preview

Law - Tort > Tort - General Negligence - Employers Liability/Vicarious Liability > Flashcards

Flashcards in Tort - General Negligence - Employers Liability/Vicarious Liability Deck (25)
Loading flashcards...
1

Wilsons and Clyde Coal Ltd v English

EL - DoC

Employers have a duty to take reasonable steps to provide:
1) Competent staff
2) adequate materials (plant, equipment & machinery)
3) a proper system of work

2

Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd

EL - duty to provide competent staff

Practical joker employee

Duty to provide competent staff also arises when an employer knows or ought to know about the risk a particular worker poses to fellow workers.

3

Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

EL - Duty to provide competent staff

C raped outside of work by a colleague, suffered nasty treatment from colleagues + superiors following complaint.

Duty to provide competent staff extends to protecting against psychological harm, therefore against bullying and harassment.

4

Walker v Northumberland County Council

EL - Safe system of work

social services worker had to deal with increasing number of cases without increased resource - stress - dismissed on grounds of permanent ill-health

Duty to provide safe system of work also covers employees who suffer stress as a result of their work.

5

Hatton v Sutherland

EL - Safe system of work

Stressed teacher - didn't inform employers

DoC will arise re. stress at work where injury at work due to stress is reasonably foreseeable. Consider:
1) nature and extent of work done
2) signs from the employee himself

6

Melville v Home Office

EL - Safe system of work

Health care officer at prison - over 17 years retrieved 8 dead bodies.

Duty under Hatton approach may still arise even though stress results from witnessing traumatic episodes rather than day to day work where injury to health is foreseeable.

7

General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas

EL - safe workspace

cleaners climbed windows to clean - injured

Duty to provide safe workplace applies regardless of where the employees are working; employer has to assess the premises to which his employees are sent, if dangers are found he must devise and implement a system to eradicate them.

8

Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance

VL - Definition of employees

A contract of service (employment contract) will usually exist if:
-Employees agree that, in consideration of a wage or other remuneration, they will provide their own work and skill in performance of some service for their employer;
-Employees agree, impliedly or expressly, that in performance of that service they will be subject to another person's control in a sufficient degree to make that person the employer;
-The other provisions of the contract are consistent with its being a contract of services. (i.e. if the person had to use their own tools or staff, likely not to be an employee).

9

Lister and others v Hesley Hall

VL - 'in course of employment'

Warden employed to care for children - sexual assaults

Vicarious liability will arise for:
1) Wrongful acts authorised by the employer
2) Wrongful and unauthorised modes of carrying out an authorised act.

Employers will be vicariously liable for prohibited intentional torts where there is sufficiency of connection between the tort and their employment.

10

Poland v Parr

VL - 'in the course of employment'

If a man is protecting his employer's property, he has implied permission to push away the thief, therefore the employer has authorised the tort and is vicariously liable.

11

Warren v Henleys Ltd

VL - 'in course of employment'

Employee insulted by customer - punched customer - not acting in course of employment - personal act

An employer will not be vicariously liable for an employee's actions when they are personal and neither authorised by nor connected with his employment.

12

Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board

VL - 'in course of employment'

Delivery driver - cigarette whilst refueling

Where employee is carrying out an authorised act in an unauthorised way, the employer will be vicariously liable.

13

Harrison v Michelin Tyre Co Ltd

VL - 'in course of employment'

Employee pushing truck - joke resulted in injury to C

Where employee is carrying out an authorised act in an unauthorised way, the employer will be vicariously liable.

14

Rose v Plenty

VL - 'in course of employment'

Milkman allowed C to help with milkround

An employer will still be vicariously liable for prohibited acts done by an employee where these further the employer's business.

15

Twine v Bean's Express

VL - 'in course of employment'

Van driver picked up hitchhiker - prohibited - died; held employer not VL as prohibited and didn't further business.

An employer will not be VL for prohibited acts done by an employee where these do not further the employer's business.

16

Lloyd v Grace, Smith and Co

VL - 'in course of employment'

Conveyancing clerk used position to fraudulently transfer property in his own name; held VL as stemmed from act that his employer authorised him to do i.e. transfer property.

An employer will be VL for an intentional tort carried out by an employee where that tort stems from an act authorised by him.

17

Mattis v Pollock

VL - 'in course of employment'

Stabby bouncer employed by Pollock

Employers will be VL for prohibited intentional torts where there is sufficiency of connection between the tort and their employment.

18

Maga v Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church

VL - 'in course of employment'

priest sexually abused 12 yr old boy - found to be sufficiently connected to his job as a priest.

Employers will be VL for prohibited intentional torts where there is sufficiency of connection between the tort and their employment.

19

Joel v Morison

VL - Intentional torts - Frolic of his own

C hit by employee in horse & cart during detour to a friend.

If an employee is acting outside his course of employment when he commits the tort, he is said to be 'on a frolic of his own'.

20

Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd

VL - Intentional torts - Frolic of his own

Caused death during unauthorised tea break - frolic of his own.

If an employee is acting outside his course of employment when he commits the tort, he is said to be 'on a frolic of his own'.

21

Harvey v R G O'Dell Ltd

VL - Intentional torts - Frolic of his own

Employee drove 5 miles from work for lunch - motorbike accident on return; held not be frolic as there were no lunch facilities onsite.

Stopping for lunch during work hours will be reasonably incidental to one's work.

22

Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co Ltd

VL - Indemnity

Father and Son working for company - son backed lorry over father - Father awarded damages and insurers sued son in name of company.

When found to be vicariously liable, employer has a right to claim an indemnity from the employee who actually committed the tort.

23

McDermid v Nash Dredging

An employer owes its employees a duty to take reasonable care of their safety while at work. (non-delegable duty)

24

Bux v Slough Metals

EL - Adequate plant, equipment and machinery

Employers have a duty to provide safe equipment AND enforce its use.

25

Black v Fife Coal

Employing incompetent staff is a breach