vicarious liability Flashcards
(4 cards)
VL structure
Wrongdoer committed a tort
Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants and the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools: two steps
Wrongdoer was an employee, or his relationship with D was ‘akin to employment’
There was a close connection between the work the wrongdoer was assigned to and the wrongdoer’s tort
Wrongdoer was an employee, or his relationship with D was sufficiently ‘akin to employment’ to render D vicariously liable
Cox v Ministry of Justice: integrated into the work of the prison (providing meals), furthered its aims, were in a position where there was a risk of injury, worked under the direction of staff and were paid
Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: foster parents who provided care for the children as an integral part of the council’s child care services- council could be vicariously liable for the abuse perpetrated by foster parents
Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants and the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools: Lord Philips factors that are relevant/would make it fair, just and reasonable to impose VL
- D2 is more likely to compensate C than D1
- tort was caused by activities done on D2’s behalf (furthering the mission)
- D1 is likely a part of D’s business activities
- D2 created the risk by employing D1
- D2 is likely to have some degree of control over D1
JGE v Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust: fully integrated into the work of the church and its mission- ‘akin to employment’
Barclays Bank v Various Claimants: NOT akin to employment, independent contractor instead
Borrowed and shared employees
Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffiths (Liverpool) Ltd: presumption that the main employer would be liable, burden of proof rests on permanent employer to shift the responsibility
Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd: employee had worked at the temporary employer for two years, D2 paid for his services and he was effectively under their control and management, he was wearing their uniform, so looked like staff- borrower held to be VL
Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd: dual VL held to provide a ‘coherent solution to the problem of the borrowed employee’
Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants and the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools: both parties could be employers
So, sometimes dual sometimes not
Tort must have been committed within the course of D1’s employment (connection limb)
There must be a close connection between the work/fields of activity which T was assigned to do, and their tort
What was the field of activities assigned/nature of the job and was the wrongdoing connected to these activities
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd: “The question is whether the [employee’s] torts were so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable” and whether the tort was “inextricably interwoven” with T carrying out his duties
Trustees of Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB: “whether the wrongful conduct, the rape, was so closely connected with acts that [D1] was authorised to do that the rape can fairly and properly be regarded as committed by him while acting in the course of his quasi-employment as an elder”
Mohamud v W M Morrison Supermarkets PLC: consider the field of activities of the employee, and then whether there is a sufficient close connection between that position and the conduct
Case examples:
Beard v London General Omnibus Co
Storey v Ashton
Williams v Hemphill
Smith v Stages
Limpus v London General Omnibus Co
Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co
N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
Mattis v Pollock
Bellman v Northamptonshire Recruitment Ltd
W M Morrison Supermarkets PLC v Various Claimants
