Tort: VL

Question 1

What is ‘vicarious liability’?

Answer 1

Liability of one party for a tort committed by another, based on a specific relationship rather than the defendant’s own fault

Question 2

What is meant by ‘strict liability’ in the context of vicarious liability?

Answer 2

Liability imposed on an employer for an employee’s tort without needing to prove the employer’s own fault

Question 3

What three elements must be satisfied for vicarious liability to apply?

Answer 3

(1) A tort was committed by Party A; (2) Party A is an employee (or in an employment-like relationship) of Party B; (3) The tort was committed in the course of Party A’s employment

Question 4

Why is vicarious liability described as ‘secondary liability’?

Answer 4

Because the defendant (e.g., employer) is held liable for another’s (e.g., employee’s) wrong without being personally at fault

Question 5

What relationship, beyond employer–employee, can give rise to vicarious liability?

Answer 5

A principal–agent relationship or other relationships akin to employment

Question 6

What requirement is essential before vicarious liability can be imposed?

Answer 6

There must be an underlying tort committed by the employee (the tortfeasor)

Question 7

In vicarious liability, why is it unnecessary to prove fault on the employer’s part?

Answer 7

Because vicarious liability imposes strict liability on the employer for employee’s torts committed in the course of employment

Question 8

Prior to 2002, how was it determined whether an employee’s act fell ‘in the course of employment’?

Answer 8

By checking if the act was expressly or impliedly authorised, incidental to proper duties, or an unauthorized way of doing something authorised

Question 9

What is the modern test for whether a tort was committed in the course of employment?

Answer 9

Whether there is a sufficiently close connection between the employee’s wrongful act and their employment duties

Question 10

Which case established the ‘close connection’ test?

Answer 10

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002]

Question 11

What facts in Lister v Hesley Hall demonstrated a ‘close connection’?

Answer 11

A house warden abused children in his care; his employment entrusted him with caring for them, creating a close link to his torts

Question 12

What was Lord Steyn’s key observation in Lister about vicarious liability?

Answer 12

To focus on the relative closeness of the connection between the nature of the employment and the particular tort

Question 13

In Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016], what test did the Supreme Court apply for vicarious liability?

Answer 13

(1) Identify the employee’s field of activities entrusted by the employer; (2) Assess if there was a sufficient connection between that role and the wrongful conduct

Question 14

Why was Morrisons held vicariously liable in Mohamud?

Answer 14

Because the employee’s abuse of a customer stemmed directly from his role in serving customers, forming a seamless episode connected to his duties

Question 15

What did Fletcher v Chancery Lane Supplies [2016] clarify about the ‘close connection’ test?

Answer 15

That merely wearing a uniform and being near the workplace is insufficient; the tortious act must be sufficiently connected to the employee’s work duties

Question 16

Give an example from Fletcher v Chancery Lane Supplies where vicarious liability did not apply.

Answer 16

A pedestrian employee crossed the road after work hours; the employer was not liable because it was unclear he was acting on business at the time

Question 17

In Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942], why was the employer liable for the driver’s negligence?

Answer 17

The driver was filling the lorry with petrol (an authorised task) but negligently smoked, causing an explosion; this unauthorized manner was still connected to his work

Question 18

Why did the employer escape liability in Joel v Morrison (1834)?

Answer 18

Because the employee acted entirely outside the scope of his authorized duties, on a ‘frolic of his own’

Question 19

In Harvey v RG O’Dell [1958], why was the bus conductor’s passenger injury held to be within the course of employment?

Answer 19

Because providing transport and stopping for lunch were incidental to his job duties during working hours

Question 20

What principle did Rose v Plenty [1976] establish about prohibited acts?

Answer 20

That even a prohibited act can be in the course of employment if done for the employer’s business and connected to authorised duties

Question 21

In Beard v London General Omnibus Co [1900], why was the employer not vicariously liable for the conductor driving the bus?

Answer 21

Because the conductor was not authorised to drive and driving was not incidental to his duties, so his act fell outside the course of employment

Question 22

What did Storey v Ashton (1869) illustrate about deviations from duty?

Answer 22

That a significant deviation for a purely personal purpose removes the act from the course of employment, negating vicarious liability

Question 23

In Twine v Bean’s Express Ltd [1946], why did the employer avoid liability when the driver injured a hitchhiker?

Answer 23

Because picking up a hitchhiker was expressly prohibited and not connected to the employer’s business, placing the act outside the course of employment

Question 24

What are the three traditional categories for an unauthorized act to be in the course of employment?

Answer 24

(1) Expressly or impliedly authorised by the employer; (2) Incidental to an authorised duty; (3) An unauthorized mode of performing an authorised act

Question 25

In Smith v Stages [1989], why was the employee’s travel time considered part of his employment?

Answer 25

Because he was paid travel expenses, working time covered travel, and he was traveling to perform work duties during employment hours

Question 26

What is meant by a relationship 'akin to employment' for vicarious liability?

Answer 26

A non-employee relationship so similar to employment that it justifies imposing vicarious liability, such as certain contractor or agency relationships

Question 27

What statute governs an employer’s right to recover contribution from an employee after vicarious liability?

Answer 27

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, s.1(1)

Question 28

Under s.1(1) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, when can an employer seek contribution from an employee?

Answer 28

When the employer has paid damages under vicarious liability and it is just and equitable to recover a portion from the employee

Question 29

What practical obstacle often prevents employers or insurers from claiming contribution against employees?

Answer 29

A ‘gentleman’s agreement’—insurers traditionally avoid seeking contribution unless there is wilful misconduct or collusion

Question 30

What policy concern underlies limiting vicarious liability to employees and those akin to employees?

Answer 30

To prevent imposing liability on parties with no real control over the tortfeasor or whose relationship lacks sufficient proximity

Question 31

Why is the concept of 'field of activities' important in the modern vicarious liability test?

Answer 31

Because it defines the scope of roles entrusted by the employer, helping assess whether the wrongful act falls within the employee’s assigned functions

Question 32

How does the Supreme Court’s two-fold test in Mohamud differ from the traditional test?

Answer 32

It explicitly focuses on the nature of assigned duties and whether the wrongful act bears a fair and just connection to those duties

Question 33

In the context of vicarious liability, what is the significance of an employee’s uniform or title?

Answer 33

Uniform or job title can indicate an employee’s role, but on its own it does not establish a close connection to a tortious act unless tied to duties

Question 34

How does policy justify imposing vicarious liability on employers but not on independent contractors?

Answer 34

Employers have control over employee activities and can spread risk through insurance, whereas independent contractors operate autonomously

Question 35

What is the employer’s potential liability for intentional torts committed by employees?

Answer 35

Employers can be vicariously liable if the intentional torts are closely connected to the employee’s duties (Lister v Hesley Hall)

Question 36

Why would an employer be vicariously liable for an assault by an employee during work hours?

Answer 36

If the assault arose from the employee’s role or was part of a sequence of events connected to authorised duties, forming a close connection

Question 37

In which scenario would an employee’s violent personal vendetta likely escape vicarious liability?

Answer 37

When the employee’s harmful act is clearly unrelated to any work duties and driven solely by personal motives (e.g., Joel v Morrison)

Question 38

What effect does the location and timing of a tortious act have on vicarious liability?

Answer 38

Location and timing help determine whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment; torts during authorized working hours and sites are likelier to attract liability

Question 39

When might an employee’s detour during work break still be within the course of employment?

Answer 39

If the detour is minor, incidental to work, or taken for a work-related reason such as a lunch break arranged by the employer

Question 40

How did Century Insurance illustrate that unauthorized risky behavior can still ground vicarious liability?

Answer 40

Because the driver smoked while refueling—an unauthorized mode of an authorized task (refueling), causing an explosion linked to work duties

Question 41

Why was the milkman’s employer liable in Rose v Plenty even though using a boy to help was prohibited?

Answer 41

Because the boy’s assistance was part of delivering milk (an authorised task), and the employer benefited from that work, creating a close connection

Question 42

What legal recourse does a victim have if both employer and employee are sued?

Answer 42

The victim can recover from either or both; the employer may seek contribution from the employee under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Question 43

How is the close connection test applied to negligent driving by an employee?

Answer 43

By asking whether driving at that time and place was part of the employee’s assigned tasks or closely related to duties entrusted by the employer

Question 44

Why does policy favour holding employers vicariously liable for employee negligence over requiring proof of employer fault?

Answer 44

Because employers control work conditions, can insure risks, and it compensates victims without complex fault inquiries against employers

Question 45

What distinguishes vicarious liability from direct liability?

Answer 45

Vicarious liability imposes responsibility for another’s tort, whereas direct liability arises from the defendant’s own negligent or wrongful conduct