Vicarious liability Flashcards
(26 cards)
1
Q
Define Vicarious Liability
A
Vicarious liability is a means of imposing liability on someone other than the tortfeasor.
2
Q
Define a tortfeasor
A
The person who committed the tort.
3
Q
Establishing VL
A
- Relationship between tortfeasor and defendant which makes it fair for D to pay the compensation. (EG: employer-employee/akin to employer)
- Close connection between this relationship and the wrongdoing.
4
Q
Barclays v Various Claimants
Independent contractor
A
- Supreme Court held that the bank was not VL for the sexual assaults committed by an independent doctor during medical examinations of job applicants.
- The court ruled that because the doctor was self-employed and not under the bank’s control (paid by examination, had other clients, worked on own premises), the relationship was not sufficiently close to establish vicarious liability.
5
Q
Salmon Test
A
Employers are Vicariously Liable when:
1) The employee has committed an unintentional tort
2)The worker concerned has employee status
3)The employee committed the tort “during the course of employment”
6
Q
Control Test
A
- How much control does the employer exercise over that other persons work
7
Q
The integration test
A
- Is the persons work so fully integrated into the business that they should be considered an employee.
8
Q
Economic reality/multiple test
A
- Used to prove whether T is an employee.
1. How T is paid
2. Who pays tac and NIC
3. Who decides working hours and is responsible for sick/holiday pay
4. Who provides tools and materials
5. Required to wear uniform
9
Q
Point of Law for the multiple test
A person should be considered an employee if:
A
- That person agrees to provide work//skill for the employer in return for payment.
- Agrees (express or implied) to be subject to the employers control.
- The other terms of the contract are consistent with the existence of a contract of service (employment contract)
10
Q
Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions
Economic reality test
A
- Lorry driver hired, he delivered concrete using a truck he owned himself, which he bought on hire purchase from the company. He wore the company uniform and had to follow a delivery schedule, but he paid for the truck’s maintenance, fuel, and insurance, and had the freedom to accept or reject jobs.
- The court ruled he was an independent contractor, not an employee, as he took on financial risk, had control over his work, and the overall arrangement was more consistent with self-employment than a contract of service
11
Q
Akin to employment two questions
A
- Was harm wrongfully done by a person whose activities are an integral part of D’s business and for the benefit of the business?
- Was the risk of the harm occurring caused by d’s assigning that activity to that person?
12
Q
Cox v Ministry of Justice
‘Akin to employment’
A
- Catering manager in a prison was injured by a prisoner working in the kitchen who accidentally dropped a heavy bag on her.
- Help Prison VL, even though the prisoner was not an employee, because he 1. was carrying out activities integral to the prison’s operation 2. by assigning the tasks to prisoners, the prison service created a risk of negligence.
13
Q
Course of Employment
A
- Amp only liable if the trot is committed in the course of employment
- Joel v Morison : the servant must be engaged on his masters business, not on a frolic of his own
14
Q
Poland v Parr
Authorised act in an unauthorised way
A
- Shopkeepers employee saw young boy allegedly stealing from shop’s delivery cart, then hit boy causing him to fall and suffer injuries.
- Employer VL became employee acted in course of employment to protect the employers goods.
15
Q
Limpus v London General Omnibus Co
Disobedient employee
A
- Bus driver caused an accident while racing and blocking rival bus.
- VL as he was still acting within the scope of his employment (job of driving the bus), even though he disobeyed orders.
16
Q
Beard v London General Omnibus Co
Disobedient employee
A
- Bus conductor who normally collected fares drove the bus without permission and caused harm.
- Not VL as he was acting outside the scope of his employment (driving not a part of his duties).
17
Q
Century Insurance Co v Northern Ireland Transport Board
Negligent/careless employee
A
- Employee caused an explosion by carelessly lighting a cigarette while delivering petrol,
- VL as the negligent act occurred during the course of his employment.
18
Q
Rose v Plenty
Employer benefits even when disobedient
A
- Milkman injured a boy helping him on his rounds,
- VL as the boy was assisting in the employee’s authorised work, even though the method was unauthorised, amp benefits.
19
Q
Twine v Beans Express
Employer doesn’t benefit and disobedient
A
- Employee gave an unauthorised lift to a hitchhiker who was later killed due to the negligent driving.
- Not VL as the act was expressly forbidden and brought no benefit to the employer.
20
Q
Hilton v Thomas Burton
Frolic of their own
A
- Employee who took an unauthorised break from work and caused a crash.
- Not VL as the employee on unauthorised frolic of own and not acting in scope of unemployment.
21
Q
Lister v Helsey Hall
Close connection test
A
- Warden at boarding school for children w emotionally difficulties sexually abused students.
- Close connection due to : job involving caring for and supervising children, abused happened within scope of duties
- VL as sufficiently close connection between acts of the employee and employment .
22
Q
Mattis v Pollock
Close connection
A
- Bouncer, employed at a nightclub, seriously injured a customer after an altercation.
- Close connection- his job included using force and intimidation to maintain order.
- VL as the attack was closely related to the employee’s job role and occurred during his working hours.
23
Q
Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarket
Close connection reformulated
A
- Customer asked employee at petrol station for assistance, but the employee responded with racial abuse and a violent physical assault, even following the customer to his car to continue the attack. The Supreme Court held that the employer was vicariously liable, as the employee’s actions were closely connected to his job, which involved dealing with customers, and the assault occurred during a sequence of events within the scope of employment.
24
Q
Close connection approved by SC
A
- What is the nature of the job entrusted to the Tortfeasor
- Is there sufficient connection between the position in which the tortfeasor is employed and their wrong doing to make it right for D to be held liable under the principle of social justice?
25
N v Chief Constable of West Merseyside
- Police officer, while off duty and in plain clothes, used his position to lure a vulnerable woman from a nightclub and then sexually assaulted her at his home.
- The Court of Appeal held that the police were not vicariously liable, as there was no close connection between the assault and the officer’s employment duties, and he was acting entirely for personal reasons outside the scope of his job.
26
Morisons v Various Claimants
- Morrisons employee, motivated by personal revenge, leaked the personal data of around 100,000 colleagues online after copying it while performing a work task.
- The Supreme Court held that Morrisons was not vicariously liable, as the employee’s actions were done for personal reasons and were not closely connected to his employment, even though he had access to the data through his job.
