Vicarious liability cases Flashcards
1
Q
Limpus v London Gnereal Omnibus (1862)
A
- two bus drivers were racing the buses despite this being prohibited
- the claimant was injured during one of the races
- the employer was held vicariously liable due to the authorised act being performed in an unauthorised way
2
Q
Beard v London General omnibus (1900)
A
- conductor of an omnibus drove the bus through side streets, off route and negligently hit and injured a man
- the employer wasn’t held vicariously liable as it shows he was acting outside the scope of his employment
3
Q
Barry congregation of Jehova’s Witnesses v BXB (2023)
A
- claimant was a Jehova’s witness who was attacked and raped by an elder of the church and suffered depression and PTSD from this
- Found it reasonable for the defendants to be held vicariously liable as the rape was closely connected with the elder’s position in the church
4
Q
A
5
Q
Mersey Docks and Harbour board v Coggins and Griffiths
A
- Harbour authority provided crane drivers to a company
- One of the drivers injured the claimant by negligently driving the crane
- held that Harbour authority would be vicariously liable as they are the primay, permenent employer
6
Q
Ready Mixed concrete v Minister of Pensions and National insurance (1968)
A
- driver contracted with a mixed concrete company for the delivery of concrete and declared him an ‘independent contractor’
- the company said he had to buy and drive his own vehicle but it had to be painted witht he company colours and he had to comply to company rules
- question arose of whether he was an employee or not for purposes of the National Insurance Act 1965
- The courts held that due to the freedom the driver had in relation to the vehicle, he was an independent contractor and not an employee
7
Q
Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison LTD v Macdonald and Evans (1952)
A
- engineer wrote a book based on knowledge he aquired whilst working for a firm in different capacities
- the question arose whether the person was considered to be an employee under a ‘contract of service’ for the purposes of allotting copyright to the employer
- court distinguished between a ‘contract of service’ and a ‘contract of services’ provided to the firm.
- held the engineer’s contract was mixed at times and he was the author of his work but some of the content fell within the copyright act 1911 and should be excluded from publication
8
Q
Barclays Bank v Various claimants (2020)
A
- many women came out against Dr Gordan Bates, claiming he sexually assaulted them during a pre-employment medical check up
- Issue of whether barclays was vicariously liable or not
- judge decided barclays would be liable or any assaults that took place
9
Q
Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants and Institute of Brothers of Christian School (2012)
A
- children were sexually assaulted by members of the institute
- the institute wasn’t employed by the school but acted as staff
- decide the school was vicarious liability as there was a close cconnection between the assaults and job being performed by the institute
10
Q
Viasystems LTD v Thermal transfer (2006)
A
- negligent fitting of ducts in a factory
- shifted while contractors were in them and flooded the factory
- held that both companies could be held vicariously liable for the negligence
11
Q
Lister v Hesley Hall (2002)
A
- a warden sexually abused boys in a boarding school for around a 3/4 year period
- the question arose of whether the employers of the warden could be held vicariously liable for the actions
- held that the employers were vicariously liable as the abuse was closely linked with the job he was performing
12
Q
Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board
A
- Lorries were insured against liability to third parties
- while one of the lorries was delivering petrol at a gas station, the undertaking’s driving lit a cigarette, causing an explosion and consequent damages
- questions of; whether the employer or insurance company was liable and whether the employee’s smoking of a cigarette was in the course of employment or not
- The employer was held vicariously liable for the damages and negligence from the driver
13
Q
Rose v Plenty
A
- milkman brought a 13 year old boy to help him deliver milk and the boy was injured due to negligent driving despite being prohibited from carrying passengers
- the employer was found liable due to the fact that the unauthorised actions benefitted them
14
Q
Twine v Beans Express
A
- delivery driver for a department store took his 16 year old son with him on a delivery round, despite being forbidden from carrying passengers.
- while taking a detour, he forgot to put the handbrake on and as a result the lorry rolled and his son was injured and suffered permenant scarring as well as damage to a shop
- seeing a bystander picking up goods to move them out the way, he thinks he is stealing them and attacks the bystander
- The employer was found vicariously liable due to the actions taken benefitting the employer
15
Q
Hilton v Thomas Burton (1961)
A
- ‘a froilic of his own’
- decided the workman was responsible for Hilton’s death while on an unauthorised tea break
