Vicarious liability

Element 1

Tort must be committed by a tortfeasor

What case confirmed the current test for vicarious liability

Trustees of the Barry congregation v BXB

Can the employer be liable for both intentional and unintentional torts

Yes

Case for sexual assault

Lister v Hesley Hall

Battery

Mattis v Pollock

Misuse of private information

Morrison Supermarket v various claimants

Element 2

A relationship of or akin to employment

What needs to be identified using the three tests in element 2

Employee is under contract or independent contractor

Case where employers not liable for independent contractors

Barclays Bank v various claimants

First test for element 2

Control test

What does the control test look at

Determines if the employer had the right to control the employee and the way they do the job

Case for control test

Short v J W Henderson

Second test in relationship of employment

Integration test

What does intergration test look at

If the tortfeasors work was fully for the business or for others

Case for intergration test

Stevenson Jordon and Harrison Ltd v McDonald and Evans

Final test in relationship of employment

Economic reality test

Economic test looks at what

Ownership of equipment

Case for economic reality test

Ready mix concrete v Minister of pensions and national insurance

Of akin to case

Christian Brothers case

How many parts in Christian brothers

5

Part 1

D is more likely to have the means of paying compensation- insurance

Part 2

Tort committed as a result of activity done on behalf of D

Part 3

Tortfeasors activity is part of Ds business

Part 4

D created the risk of the tort by employing the tortfeasor

Part 5

D has a degree of control over tortfeasor

Element 3

Tort must occur in the course of employment

Non intentional is what test

Close connections test

Acts in course of employment when unauthorised

Rose v Plenty

Not in course of employment and a frolic of ones own

Twine v Beans express

Intentional tort test

sufficient connection test

Sufficient connection seen first in

Mohamud v WM Morrisons supermarket plc (2016)

Case where D liable if tortfeasor doesn’t intend to harm business

WM Morrisons supermarket plc v various claimants (2020)