Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability

Vicarious liability

1) C must suffer loss or injury due to the tort; AND

2) There must be a relationship between the person who commits the tort (the tortfeasor- T)

and D; AND

3) There must be a connection between the tortious act/omission and the relationship.

Bramwell in Yewens v Noakes

Control test: “An [employee] is a person subject to the command of his [employer] as to the manner in which he shall do his work”

Hawley v Luminar Leisure

Control test link If T can be told what to do and how to do it, he is an employee

The Multiple Test

This means the judge will look at multiple factors to decide whether or not T is an employee.

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions

The court will consider multiple factors when deciding if T is an employee - the multiple test

Express & Echo Publications v Tanton

T was not an employee as there was no personal performance required

Carmichael v National Power

T was not an employee as there was no mutuality of obligations

Salmond test

There is a connection between the tort and the employment if the tort is committed in the course of T's employment, even if done in a wrongful or unauthorised way

Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board

An authorised act done in a wrongful and unauthorised way: improper way of carrying out an authorised act

Rose v Plenty

Where D has banned an unauthorised method of carrying out an authorised act, D will be liable if there is an economic benefit to D from it.

Twine v Beans Express

An authorised act done in an expressly forbidden way: D will not be liable if there is no economic benefit to D from it.

Hilton v Thomas Burton

D is not liable for unauthorised acts (where T is on a 'frolic of his own').

Beard v LGO

D was not liable when a bus conductor turned the bus around injuring C as this was an unauthorised act.

3

Vicarious Liability where the tort is also a criminal offence

Lister v Hesley Hall (test)

Were the acts of the employee so closely connected with his employment that it was fair and just to hold the employer liable?

WM Morrisons plc v Various Claimants

The fact that his authorised activities gave him the opportunity to commit a tort was not enough for a ‘close connection’.

Various Claimants v CCWS

• D is in a position to use the employee to further its business interests, and

• D has done so in a way that created or significantly enhanced the risk that victims would suffer the wrongdoing.

‘enterprise risk’