vicarious liability

what is vicarious liability?

it holds an employer liable when an employee commits a tort during employment

what case established the test for vicarious liability?

trustees of the barry congregation of jehova’s witnesses v BXB

two part test for vicarious liability

is there a relationship of employment or akin to employment, is there a close connection between the employment and the tort committed

what are the three traditional employee tests?

control test, integration test, economic reality test

what is the control test?

determines where the employer had the right to control what the emplyee did and the way it was done

what is the case for the control test?

hawley v luminar leisure

what is the integration test?

was the tortfeasors work fully for the business or were they only an accessory to the business, like an independent contractor

what is the economic reality test?

factors such as equipment, payment, role and autonomy may indicate whether they are employed or self-employed

what case is used for the economic reality test?

ready mixed concrete v minister of pensions

what case determined the five factors for a relationship akin to employment?

catholic child welfare society and others v various claimants

what is the first factor?

the defendant is more likely to have a means of compensation

what is the second factor?

the tort was committed as a result of activity being undertaken on behalf of the d

what is the third factor?

the tortfeasors activity is likely to be part of the defendant business activity

what the fourth factor?

the defendant created the risk by employing the tortfeasor

what is the fifth factor?

the defendant maintains a degree of control over the tortfeasor

what must be proven next?

is there a close connection between the employment and the tort

if the employee is doing their job but acting against orders the employer can be?

liable

what case shows this about going against orders?

limpus v london general omnibus

when an employee carries out authorised duties in a negligent way the employer can be?

liable

what case shows this about negligence?

century insurance v northern ireland road transport board

when an act is so closely connected to the employment, such as in the course of employment, the employee can be?

liable

what case shows this about acts closely connected to employment?

mattis v pollock

when an employee is taking a frolic of their own in the course of employment the employee can be?

not liable

what case shows this about frolics?

storey v ashton

for intentional torts what must be considered?

whether there was a sufficiently close connection between the employees field of activities and the tort

what is a case where the employers was liable for an intentional tort?

mohamad v morrisons - he was acting sufficiently close to employment, such as talking to customers

what is a case where the employer was not vicariously liable for a intentional tort?

morrisons v various claimants - online discourse not within the field of employee’s activities

why can vicarious liability be just?

employer is better off than employee - could financially cripple them

promotes better standards when hiring and training

employers should be responsible for the people they choose to hire

the employer also benefits from the actions of the employee