Vicarious Liability Flashcards
(14 cards)
What is vicarious liability?
A. Strict liability imposed on one party for the tort of another
B. A form of contributory negligence involving employees
C. A type of criminal liability arising from group action
D. The personal liability of an employer for their own negligence
A. Strict liability imposed on one party for the tort of another
Explanation: Vicarious liability is a form of secondary liability, typically imposed on an employer for torts committed by an employee in the course of employment, without the need to prove fault by the employer.
What is the key test for whether a tort was committed “in the course of employment”?
A. Was the act expressly permitted by the employer?
B. Was the act criminal in nature?
C. Was the employee acting off-duty?
D. Was there a close connection between the tort and the employee’s role?
D. Was there a close connection between the tort and the employee’s role?
Explanation: The close connection test is the modern test (from Lister and Mohamud), assessing how closely linked the tort is to the employee’s duties.
Which of the following is NOT relevant when applying the multiple factors test from Ready Mixed Concrete?
A. Control over how work is done
B. Mutual obligations between parties
C. Whether the employee is paid weekly or monthly
D. Provision of tools and integration into the business
C. Whether the employee is paid weekly or monthly
Explanation: Payment frequency is not determinative. The key factors include control, mutuality of obligation, and other contract terms indicating employment.
When can an employer be vicariously liable for someone who is not a formal employee?
A. If the person is in a relationship akin to employment
B. If the employer warned them not to do the act
C. If the person has committed a crime
D. If the person is under 18
A. If the person is in a relationship akin to employment
Explanation: Liability can arise even without formal employment where the relationship is sufficiently similar to employment and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability (Cox, Barclays).
A lorry driver lights a cigarette while filling his tank with petrol, causing an explosion. Is the employer vicariously liable?
A. No — smoking was unauthorised
B. Yes — he was acting outside his contract
C. No — the driver was off-duty
D. Yes — the act was an unauthorised way of performing his duties
D. Yes — the act was an unauthorised way of performing his duties
Explanation: As in Century Insurance, the employee was performing his work task (refuelling), albeit carelessly, so it was in the course of employment.
A delivery driver deviates from his route to visit a friend, during which he hits a pedestrian. Is the employer vicariously liable?
A. Yes — he was still wearing uniform
B. Yes — all acts by employees are covered
C. No — he was on a “frolic of his own”
D. No — the employer did not authorise it in writing
C. No — he was on a “frolic of his own”
Explanation: A substantial personal deviation from the work route (as in Storey v Ashton) removes liability — the act was not connected to employment.
A prisoner working in a prison kitchen negligently injures a staff member. Is the prison service vicariously liable?
A. No — the prisoner is not an employee
B. Yes — the prisoner was carrying out work integral to the prison’s business
C. No — prisoners cannot be liable in tort
D. Yes — but only if paid a full salary
B. Yes — the prisoner was carrying out work integral to the prison’s business
Explanation: In Cox v Ministry of Justice, the prisoner was held to be in a relationship akin to employment, and the work created a risk of harm.
A milkman was prohibited from using help on his rounds but brought a boy to assist. The boy was injured. Is the employer liable?
A. Yes — the act furthered the employer’s business
b. No — the milkman disobeyed orders
C. No — the boy was a trespasser
D. Yes — only if the boy had a contract
A. Yes — the act furthered the employer’s business
Explanation: In Rose v Plenty, the employer was liable because the act, although unauthorised, was done in furtherance of the business.
A medical examiner hired by a company assaults candidates during job screening. He has his own practice and clients. Is the company liable?
A. No — he was carrying on an independent business
B. Yes — he was their chosen doctor
C. Yes — he was under their control
D. No — the tort was sexual, not negligent
A. No — he was carrying on an independent business
Explanation: In Barclays Bank v Various Claimants, the Court found no relationship akin to employment as Dr Bates operated a genuinely independent business.
An employee assaults a customer after being asked a question at work. The assault takes place immediately outside the store. Is the employer liable?
A. No — the act happened off premises
B. Yes — if it formed part of an unbroken sequence of employment activity
C. No — if the employee acted out of personal malice
D. Yes — if the victim suffered actual bodily harm
B. Yes — if it formed part of an unbroken sequence of employment activity
Explanation: In Mohamud v Morrisons, the assault was treated as a seamless event linked to the employee’s duties, and the employer was held liable.
A cyclist is injured by a company employee crossing the road 40 minutes after his shift, in uniform. What is the likely result?
A. Employer liable — uniform proves employment
B. No liability — act not sufficiently connected to duties
C. Employer liable — accident was near workplace
D. No liability — cycling injuries are exempt
B. No liability — act not sufficiently connected to duties
Explanation: In Fletcher v Chancery Lane, the court held that simply being in uniform was not enough — no clear evidence the act was linked to employment.
A crane operator is lent to another company who instructs him daily but does not control how he operates the crane. Who is vicariously liable?
A. The borrowing company
B. The operator personally
C. The original employer
D. Both companies jointly
C. The original employer
Explanation: In Mersey Docks v Coggins, control over how work is done was decisive. As the original employer retained that control, they remained liable.
In which situation might two employers be held jointly vicariously liable for the same tort?
A. Only if they signed a joint liability agreement
B. When both have equal legal responsibility for payroll
C. When both exercise a sufficient degree of control over the tortfeasor
D. Never — vicarious liability can only attach to one employer
C. When both exercise a sufficient degree of control over the tortfeasor
Explanation: In Viasystems Ltd v Thermal Transfer Ltd [2005], the Court of Appeal held that dual vicarious liability could arise where two employers share control over the worker’s actions. This reflects the practical realities of modern subcontracting relationships.
What is the main policy reason for imposing vicarious liability on employers?
A. To punish employers for poor hiring decisions
B. To simplify the litigation process by suing the employer directly
C. To deter businesses from giving workers too much independence
D. To ensure those who create risks bear the cost when harm occurs
D. To ensure those who create risks bear the cost when harm occurs
Explanation: The key rationale is rooted in enterprise risk theory — if an employer creates or benefits from a system of work that carries risk, it is fair they bear liability when that risk materialises (Lister, Cox). It also ensures victims receive compensation from a solvent party.
