Vicarious Liability A03 Flashcards
-P1: Employer may still be liable even if they have expressly prohibited act which is unfair on the df (case)
Rose v Plenty employers held accountable despite milkman breaching the employers instructions to not allow children on his vehicle = harsh on employers who have been careful
+DP1: However, decision in Rose v Plenty was fair as….
it was in the interest of the children’s safety and the employer derived benefit from the milkman’s conduct so it can be seen as justified
-WDP1: Unfair to expect employer to have control over all unpredictable acts of their employees that they would never condone.. (case)
Century Insurance v NI Transport employer was held liable for the employees unpredictable and careless behaviour discarding a match whilst filling up petrol = unfair on employers
+P2: Public policy to have high standards for employers as it encourages them to take a more active role in monitoring employee’s activities which
deters poor employment practices and minimising risk taking → can save the employer from potential costly litigation = fair
+DP2: Fair on cl to hold employers responsible, law has development regarding ‘akin to employment’ test in …. (case)
VC v Catholic Welfare Society which aims to protect CL, particularly in child abuse cases - fair and justified
+WDP2: Employers try to claim workers aren’t employees to avoid workers rights such as… (case)
UBER v Aslam it was held that drivers were employees as the UBER had a degree of control over them → stopped them escaping liability promoting workers rights and justice
+P3: Justified that if the employee benefits of the employees financially they are held financially responsible for them
employer has the power to discipline/dismiss them for negligence or unsafe practice = fair they are held responsible
+DP3: Practical advantage that VL provides a way on ensuring CL receives compensation…. (case)
justified as employers are usually legally requited to hold insurance → Hilton v Thomas Barton where the CL chose to sue the employer to compensate her husbands death = fair
+WDP3: Employers are better equipped to compensate the CL compared to the employee especially in high value cases… (case)
Armes v Notts the council were held VL for the sexual and physical abuse by foster parents = fair as it ensures victims receive justice + appropriately compensated
-P4: Decision in Barclays v VC is fair on employer, the UKSC acknowledged that the decision didn’t….
achieve justice as the assaulter was now dead so they have no means of compensation as the bank wasn’t found to be liable = unfair on CLs
DP4: Inconsistency between Barclays v VC and Morrisons v VC….
through the appeals courts - highlights the difficulties in applying the close connection test = unfair
WDP4: VL operates in an inconsistent manner, seemingly similar cases have been decided differently….
creates confusion in the law and lacks clarity making it less predictable for both CLs and for DFs
