Vicarious Liability

Question 1

What are the 2 points that have to be proven for vicarious liability?

Answer 1

1. The tortfeasor must be an employee or there is a relationship akin to employment
2. The tortious actions must fall within the course of employment or be sufficiently closely connected to the employment

Question 2

What is the case that sets out the 2 points of vicarious liability?

Answer 2

Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses vs BXB

Question 3

What is the POL from Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses vs BXB?

Answer 3

The first stage was satisfied as Sewell was in a position that was akin to employment, however, the rape was not sufficiently closely connected to his position in the church, he rather abused his friendship with the victim instead of his employment position

Question 4

What is a case for point 1 - the tortfeasor must be an employee or there is a relationship akin to employment?

Answer 4

Barclays Bank vs Various Claimants

Question 5

What is the POL from Barclays Bank vs Various Claimants

Answer 5

Supreme court decided that the doctor wasn’t an employee but an independent contractor and therefore was not in a relationship akin to employment so Barclays was not liable

Question 6

What are the traditional tests that determine employment status?

Answer 6

1. Control Test
2. Integration Test
3. Economic Reality Test

Question 7

What is the control test?

Answer 7

Looks to see if the employer has the right to control what the employee did and how it was done

Question 8

What is a case for the control test?

Answer 8

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board vs Coggins and Griffiths

Question 9

What is the integration test?

Answer 9

Looks at how vital the work is for the employer and if the work is merely an accessory to the firm then they are an independent contractor

Question 10

What is a case for the integration test?

Answer 10

Stevenson Jordan and Harrison vs McDonald and Evans

Question 11

What is the economic reality test?

Answer 11

Looks at many factors like:

Ownership of Equipment
Method of Payment
Who is responsible for tax/NI payments
Description of tortfeasor’s role
Flexibility during the role

Question 12

What is a case for the economic reality test?

Answer 12

Ready Mixed Concrete vs Minister of Pensions and National Insurance

Question 13

What case set out the factors to consider when deciding if a relationship is akin to employment?

Answer 13

The Christian Brothers Case

Question 14

What are the factors that were outlined in the Christian Brothers Case?

Answer 14

1. The employer is more likely to have a means of compensation
2. The tort will have been committed as a result of activity being undertaken by the tortfeasor on behalf of the employer
3. The tortfeasor’s activity was part of some business activity of the employer
4. The employer had created the risk of the tort by the tortfeasor (employing them)
5. The employer maintains a degree of control of the tortfeasor

Question 15

What other case could be used for akin to employment relationships?

Answer 15

Cox vs Ministry of Justice

Question 16

What is the POL from Cox vs Ministry of Justice?

Answer 16

All 5 factors were considered to decide a relationship akin to employment

Question 17

What are the 2 types of acts that would be regarded as within the course of employment?

Answer 17

1. Authorised acts
2. Authorised acts done in a way which is prohibited or negligent

Question 18

What are 2 cases of acts that fall within the course of employment?

Answer 18

1. Rose vs Plenty
2. Limpus vs London General Omnibus Co

Question 19

What is the POL from Rose vs Plenty?

Answer 19

Although the act was prohibited, it was still committed within the course of his employment and the employer didn’t do enough to prevent it happening

Question 20

What is the POL from Limpus vs London General Omnibus Co?

Answer 20

Although the act was prohibited, it was still committed within the course of his employment and the employer didn’t do enough to prevent it happening

Question 21

What are the 2 types of acts that aren’t regarded as in the course of employment?

Answer 21

1. Actions falling outside the scope of employment
2. Acts undertaken outside of the employment remit

Question 22

What is a case that falls outside the scope of employment?

Answer 22

Beard vs London General Omnibus Co

Question 23

What is the POL from Beard vs London General Omnibus Co?

Answer 23

The conductor’s job was to sell tickets for the bus, not to drive it, therefore his actions fell outside the scope of employment

Question 24

What is a case that falls outside the employment remit?

Answer 24

Hilton vs Burton

Question 25

What is the POL from Hilton vs Burton?

Answer 25

The employees were on a 'frolic of their own' so their act fell outside the employment remit

Question 26

How do determine actions that are closely connected to the employment?

Answer 26

Using the close connection test

Question 27

What is the close connection test?

Answer 27

1. What job should the employee be doing? 2. Whether there was a sufficient connection between the position the employee was in and his wrongful conduct

Question 28

What case can you use for the close connection test?

Answer 28

A M Mohamud vs WM Morrisons Supermarkets

Question 29

What is the POL from A M Mohamud vs WM Morrisons Supermarkets?

Answer 29

Responding to customers was an aspect of the tortfeasor's job role and thus his abuse is closely connected

Question 30

What is a case that covers intentional torts that are committed for the tortfeasor's own benefit?

Answer 30

Lister vs Hesley Hall

Question 31

What is the POL from Lister vs Hesley Hall?

Answer 31

Intentional torts committed for the tortfeasor's own benefit can give rise to vicarious liability where they are closely connected with the role he was employed to do As his role as warden was to care and discipline the boys, his abuse was closely connected and vicarious liability was imposed

Question 32

What case could be used for actions that are not regarded as closely connected to employment?

Answer 32

WM Morrison's Supermarket vs Various Claimants

Question 33

What is the POL from WM Morrison's Supermarket vs Various Claimants?

Answer 33

Where an employee commits an intentional tort to deliberately harm an employer, as part of a vendetta with no benefit to the employer, the tort will not be considered to be closely connected