LAW - vicarious liabilty

what is vicarious liability?

the liability of one person for the torts committed by another

what 2 things are needed in order to establish liability?

1) must show D is an employer

2) must show D's employee committed the tort during the course of employment

what 3 tests can be used to show that Dis an employee?

control, economic reality, organisation

what is the control test and what case was it established?

established in Yewen v Noakes

considers whether the employer has the power to control the nature of work done and how it is done. uses old concept of master-servant

what is the integration test and in what case was it established? what did Lord Denning state?

established in stevenson v macdonald

relies of a distinction between contract of and contract for services

Lord Denning: "under a contract of service a man is employed as a part of the business and the work done is integral..... contract for services..... only an accessory"

what is the economic reality test? in what case was it established?

established in ready mixed concrete v minister of pensions

added things that help determine whether the person is contract of or for service

what did the economic reality test build on?

the integration test

things that show contract for services

1) paid lump sum/ invoice

2) worker will deduct tax + national insurance

3) work when they want

4) high independence

5) buy equipment themselves

things that show contract of services

1) paid wages / salary

2) business deducts from wage/ salary

3) set hours or rota

4) low independence

5) business provides equipment

frolic of his own: is employer liable? what case?

not liable if employee does something not related to his work

Storey v Ashton: D's employees delivered goods, on way back took a detour to do "business of their own". while on detour ran over c in horse and cart

authorised act in an unauthorised manner: is employer liable? case?

employer liable for authorised act unauthorised manner.

Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board: d's employee filling up lorry while smoking and cig caused explosion, D liable

unauthorised act unauthorised manner (distinguishing case): is employer liable? case?

employer not liable if acting beyond scope of employment.

Iqbal v London transport: d's employee employed as a bus conductor but instead drove the bus and hit child due to negligent driving. D not liable employee was acting beyond scope of employment

closeness of connection? what type of act is this used for, is employee liable, cases?

used for UNLAWFUL ACTS

employer is only liable if there is a closeness of connection between what the job is and what the employee has done

- Lister v Helsey Hall: warden @ boarding school SAing kids, found closeness of connection as knew he would be alone with them at night

- Gravil v Redruth Rugby Club: c + d semi professional rugby players. d punched c in off ball tackle. closeness of connection found as rugby is a contact sport and contract prohibited fighting

- Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the brothers of christian schools: institute sent volunteers to teach children, SA them. decided volunteer is "akin" to employee. closeness of connection found as work was to be around kids

what things can be used to decide if D was in course of employment?

- frolic of his own

- authorised act, unauthorised manner

- unauthorised act, unauthorised manner

- closeness of connection

strengths of vicarious liability

- employers pay insurance (better position to pay compensation, "victimless")

- legal obligation for employers to carry out DBS checks

- employers have a responsibility to train + recruit employees

- must ensure discipline

= legal duty to ensure health + safety procedures r being followed at all times

- claimant has better chance of getting money

weaknesses of vicarious liability

- reputation of employer tarnished

- difficult to control employees 24/7

- insurance premiums can be high

- having insurance means claimant is more likely to make a claim