Vicarious Liability

Question 1

Readymix concrete v minister of pensions

Answer 1

1- person agrees to work in return for payment
2- person agrees expressly or impliedly to be under employer’s control

Question 2

Ferguson v Dawson

Answer 2

If D controls what work is done and how and when, they are an employee

Question 3

Mohamed v Morrisons

Answer 3

•was there a sufficient connection between position in which he was employed and his wrongful conduct to make it right for the employee to be liable?
•if in field of employment & within working hours then employee

Question 4

Cox v ministry of justice

Answer 4

•if relationship similar to employee employer relationship
•D’s business & D’s benefit

Question 5

Viasystems v thermal transfer

Answer 5

If both companies had control over employee, then both responsible

Question 6

Morrisons v various claimants

Answer 6

SC said no close connection if persuing a personal vendetta as not in course of employment

Question 7

Limpus v london omnibus

Answer 7

•employee doing authorised act in unauthorised way
•Company VL if doing what authorised to do even if it was against orders

Question 8

Rose v plenty

Answer 8

•employee carries out authorised act in unauthorised way
•Employer liable as the benefitted from the actions of the employee

Question 9

Century insurance v Northern Ireland road transport board

Answer 9

•employee doing authorised work negligently
•employee liable if in course of employment, even if it was for employees own benefit

Question 10

Smith v stages

Answer 10

Employer responsible if pay for travel and expenses to cover travel costs

Question 11

Hilton v Thomas Burton

Answer 11

•employee on frolic of their own
•employers not liable if on unauthorised frolic of their own & not acting in course of the employment

Question 12

Twine v Beans express

Answer 12

•employee does authorised act in unauthorised way
•employee on a drops of their own
•not liable if doing unauthorised act & employers gaining no benefit

Question 13

Haesmans v clarity cleaning

Answer 13

•employee on a frolic of their own
•not liable if doing activities that have no relevance to the job they are employed to do

Question 14

Lister v Hesley hall

Answer 14

•employee commits a criminal act
•close connection between job & act if on premises and during work hours

Question 15

N v Chief constable of Merseyside police

Answer 15

•employee commits a criminal act
•not liable if off duty as no close connection