Vicarious liability

Vicarious liability

When a defendant is held liable for a tort committed by a third party

2 stage test

‘Employee’ relationship

Close connection test

Test for employee status - Control test

If employee is told how to do something rather than told to do a job

Test for employee status - Integration test

Worker will be an employee of their work is integrated into the business rather than just benefiting the business

Economic reality test (case)

Ready mix concrete vs Minister of pensions

Even though they wore uniforms they still owned their own lorries

Akin to employment

When the relationship is so similar to that of employment and their is a ‘close connection’ even thought its not through the traditional route of employment

Close connection test

Wrongful act must be so closely connected to that of which the employee was authorised to do

Employee acting negligently (CCT)

This is where an employee does their job badly

Acting against orders (CCT)

Employee doing their job but acting against what they’re meant to be doing - employee can still be liable if the actions further the employers business

Employee acting on a frolic of their own

When damage is done at a time or place outside of work or which has nothing to do with employment - employer not liable

Criminal actions of employee (case)

Mattis v Pollock

Bouncer used force however has a close connection to what he is hired to do

Ruling from ready mix concrete vs minister of pensions (3)

Employee works in return for a wage

Work is subject to control of employer

Contract is consistent with that of employment contract

Checklist for problem question

Intro

Relationship or akin to employment

Close connection between tort and employment

Conclusion