Policy Issues in Vicarious Liability

1. In how many areas has justification for wide recovery been made in vicarious liability?

Justification for such wide recovery has been made in several areas.

2. What should policy reasons allow in tort?

The first is that, as is common in tort law, policy reasons should allow those injured to have means of compensation.

3. Why are employers considered better placed to compensate victims?

Employers generally have larger assets, and greater means with which to offset any losses (deep pocket compensation).

4. How does Rose v Plenty illustrate the deep pocket argument?

For example, it is unlikely that the milkman in Rose v Plenty would have had sufficient funds to pay compensation or that he would have insurance.

5. What happens if the activity is outside the course of employment?

However, if the activity is deemed to be outside the course of employment then the claimant will not be able to use vicarious liability and so is unlikely to gain compensation, such as in Beard v LGO.

6. What is the second major justification for vicarious liability?

Secondly, it is under the instruction of an employer by which a tort is committed; the employer can be seen to gain from the duties of their employees, and thus must bear the consequences of any wrongdoings committed by them.

7. How does Rose v Plenty support the “employer gains benefit” justification?

In Rose v Plenty, despite the fact that the employer had banned milkmen from giving lifts, the employer was gaining from having the boy help deliver milk and therefore were made to bear the consequences when this went wrong.

8. How does Hilton v Thomas Burton support this justification?

This theory is also supported by the employers not being responsible in Hilton v Thomas Burton where the employees went on an unauthorised break and killed someone, the employers were not liable, the employees were on a frolic of their own and the employer was not gaining any benefit from them taking an unauthorised break.

9. What is the final justification for wide recovery in vicarious liability?

Lasty, it has been justified as a way to reduce the taking of risks by employers, and to ensure adequate precautions are taken in conducting business.

10. How does Lister v Hesley Hall illustrate the precaution-based justification?

For example, in Lister v Hesley Hall, employers were liable for the criminal acts of their employees because the criminal acts were closely connected to their work, so the employers should have taken action to prevent the criminal acts from taking place.

11. Why might this justification not apply well in Limpus and Rose v Plenty?

However, it is questionable whether the employers in Limpus and Rose v Plenty could have done any more as in both instances the employees were acting against the employer’s instructions.

12. What issue arises when employers try to prevent injury?

In cases like these, this reason doesn’t seem to be reflected in the rules as the employers had tried to prevent injury.