Vicarious Liability Case facts Flashcards
(41 cards)
What is vicarious liability?
Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the negligent actions of an employee or agent, when such actions occur in the course of their employment.
In the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001), what was the main issue?
The main issue was whether the employer was vicariously liable for the sexual assaults committed by an employee against a child in his care.
True or False: Vicarious liability can only be applied to intentional torts.
False. Vicarious liability can apply to both negligent and intentional torts committed by an employee in the course of their employment.
What was the conclusion of the Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001) case?
The House of Lords held that the employer was vicariously liable, as the employee’s actions were closely connected to his employment.
Fill in the blank: In Bazley v Curry (1999), the court emphasized that vicarious liability applies when the wrongful act is closely connected to the _____ of the employee.
employment
What case established that an employer can be liable for an employee’s acts if they are a ‘frolic of their own’?
The case of Warren v Henleys Ltd (1979) established this principle.
In Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (2016), what was the nature of the employee’s actions?
The employee assaulted a customer at the supermarket.
True or False: An employee’s personal motives can always absolve an employer from vicarious liability.
False. Even if an employee acts with personal motives, an employer may still be liable if the actions are closely connected to the employment.
What is the ‘close connection’ test in vicarious liability?
The ‘close connection’ test determines if an employee’s wrongful act is sufficiently connected to their employment to hold the employer liable.
Which case involved a taxi driver and a passenger regarding vicarious liability?
In Mason v The British Institute of Radiology (2003), the court considered the liability of a taxi driver for a passenger’s injuries.
In Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001), what was the relationship of the parties involved?
The parties involved were a residential school and its employee who committed sexual assaults.
What is the primary purpose of vicarious liability in the context of tort law?
The primary purpose is to provide compensation to victims and to ensure that employers take responsibility for their employees’ actions.
Fill in the blank: The doctrine of vicarious liability is rooted in _____ law.
tort
In which case did the court rule that an employer could not be held liable for an employee’s actions during non-working hours?
In Ryder v Aylesbury Vale District Council (2004), the court ruled that the employer was not liable.
What is the significance of the Mattis v Pollock (2003) case?
The significance lies in the court’s finding that an employer was vicariously liable for an employee’s violent act committed during work hours.
True or False: An employer is always liable for all acts committed by an employee.
False. An employer is only liable for acts that are closely connected to the employee’s work.
What type of relationships can vicarious liability apply to aside from employer-employee?
Vicarious liability can also apply to principal-agent relationships.
In Cox v Ministry of Justice (2016), what was the claimant’s relationship to the defendant?
The claimant was a prisoner working in a prison kitchen, and the defendant was the Ministry of Justice.
What did the court rule in Cox v Ministry of Justice (2016) regarding vicarious liability?
The court ruled that the Ministry of Justice was vicariously liable for the negligent actions of the prisoner who injured the claimant.
Fill in the blank: The key factor in determining vicarious liability is whether the employee’s act was done in the course of their _____ duties.
employment
What was the outcome of Harrison v Wandsworth Borough Council (2003) regarding vicarious liability?
The court found that the council was not vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, as they were not acting in the course of employment.
What concept did the case of Parker v British Airways Board (1982) illustrate regarding vicarious liability?
It illustrated that an employer could be liable for actions taken by employees even when those actions were unauthorized.
What does the term ‘frolic’ refer to in the context of vicarious liability?
A ‘frolic’ refers to an employee’s personal excursion or activity that is unrelated to their work duties.
In Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd (2006), what was the main focus of the case?
The focus was on whether a contractor could be held vicariously liable for the actions of its subcontractor.
