Flashcards in Vicarious Liability Deck (17):
Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison v MacDonald and Evans
Test was whether work done was integral part of business.
Concerned lorry drivers who hired lorries from RMC and used equipment belonging to the company. Test; (1) skills must be provided in exchange for wage, (2) there should be an element of control exercised on the part of the employer, and (3) the provisions of the contract ought to be consistent with a contract of service.
ViaSystems v Thermal Transfer
May LJ favoured orthodox control test, whereas Rix LJ favoured integration test.
Test was whether relationship is so close in character to one of employer and employee that it is just and fair to hold the employer vicariously liable.
An employer will be held liable for a wrongful act that they have authorised or a wrongful and unauthorised method of doing an authorised act.
Bazley v Curry (Canadian case)
Vicarious liability appropriate where there is a significant connection between the creation or enhancement of a risk and the wrong that accrues therefrom.
Lister v Hesley Hall
Confirmed Bazley v Curry - while employment enables the employee to be present at a particular time and place it doesn't necessarily mean it was in the scope of the employment.
Maga v The Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese
Was the tort so closely connected with what was authorised or expected that it would be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable?
Mattis v Pollock
P owned nightclub and hired doorman who he knew acted aggressively, so when the doorman stabbed a customer after leaving the club it was held that the assault was closely connected to what was authorised or expected.
Mohamud v Morrisons
Held that although nothing was wrong with close connection test, test should be; (1) what function or field of activities had been entrusted by the employer to the employee? (2) the court must decided whether there was a sufficient connection between the position in which he was employed and his wrongful conduct.
Wilson and Clyde Coal v English
Court enforced non delegable duty of care. The employer was guilty of breaching a personal duty to see that care was taken by the person responsible for organising a safe system of work.
Honeywill v Stein & Larkin
Contractor hired photographer to photograph work done on cinema, magnesium used for flash set fire to cinema. Held inherently dangerous activities which are contracted for are non delegable, with exceptions for (1) where duty is imposed by statute, or (2) where dangerous chemicals are being used.
Farraj v King's Healthcare Trust
Negligence in blood testing led to pregnancy being continued and child being born with disease. Held that any departure from general vicarious liability rules must be justified on policy grounds.
Gwilliam v WHH NHS Trust
G sued NHS for employing contractor whose insurance had run out a few days prior to NHS fun fair. Held - nature of event demanded that insurance be checked (which it was) but it was unreasonable to insist on policy document being checked, the hospital had dismissed its duty.
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
Defendant hired independent contractor for pyrotechnical display without checking insurance, liable for injuries.
Attorney General BVI v Hartwell
Held that police had duty to check that police officers to whom they entrusted weapons were suitable.