Vicarious Liability Flashcards
(16 cards)
Barry congregation of jehovahs witnesses v bxb
Tortfeasor must be an employee of must have a relationship akin to employment, tortious actions must fall within course of employment
Barclays Bank plc v various claimants
Doctor conducted medical examinations for Barclays- accused of sexual assault- bsrclsyd not liable as he was an independent contractor
The control test
If the employer had the right to control what the employee did- Mersey docks and harbour board v coggins and griffins
The integration test
Stevenson Jordan and Harrison ltd v McDonald and Evan’s- how integrated the employees work was and if it was fully for the business or just an accessory
The economic reality test
Method of payment, who is responsible for taxes- ready mixed concrete ltd v minister of pensions and national insurance
Christian brothers case
Akin to employment if- employers is more likely to have means of compensation, the tort will have been committed as a result of activity being undertaken by the tortfeasor on behalf of the employee, the tortfeasor activity was part of some business activity of the employer, the employee had created the risk of the tort by the tortfeasor, the employer maintains a degree of control over the tortfeasor
Cox v ministry of justice
Claimant managed a prison kitchen, prisoner dropped a bag of rice on claimants back causing injury, prison liable- akin to employment, tort committed as a result of activity being takes by the tortfeasor on behalf of the defendant, likely to be part of the business activity of the defendant and by employing the tortfeasor to carry out the activity they have created the risk
Rose v plenty
Delivers milk- told not to use children to help deliver still does and child was injured- liable as he was within his course of employment
Limbus v London general omnibus company
Employer banned bus racing, still did and crashed injuring people- liable as did not enforce ban
Beard v London general omnibus company
Conductor decided do drive bus and crashed- not liable as not in normal course of employment
Hilton v burton
4 workmen- go to cafe in employers van one dies due to negligent driving- not liable as on frolic of their own
Shelborne v cruk
Employee attended work Christmas party- was dancing with a visiting scientist- dropped her on floor causing a back injury- not liable as not connected with the duties of the tortfeasor
A m Mohamed v wm Morrisons supermarket plc
Claimant entered supermarket petroleum station and was racially abused and physical assaulted by an employee- liable as was course of employment
Lister v Hensley hall Ltd
A warden responsible for the care organisation and disciple at a boarding school sexually abused a number of boys- liable as was closely connected to to what he was employed to do
Matthis v pollock
Club doorman- involved dispute- later outside argument continues doorman stabbed man on street liable as close connection between doorman’s actions and what he is expected to do
Wm Morrisons supermarket plc v various claimants
Mr Skelton kept his own copy of all employees pay roll details and published on public websites- not liable as was part of a vendetta against the employer
