To what extent is vicarious liability fair on the employer?

Criticize the whole concept

as in Rose v Plenty and Limpus v London General they were both instructed explicitly not to do what they did 

The whole idea does not follow the principle of fault as the employer does not have to have done anything wrong to be liable 

In Mahamud v Morrison the actions of the employees were horrible and went against all instructions from their employer but just the fact it was done on their time made Morrisons liable. It is very hard to screen potential employees for this type of behaviour

Criticize the fact it has become increasingly difficult to establish whether people are employees or not.

This came up in the Uber driver case where Uber argued they didn’t employ the drivers and they were just an app.  

All the tests are still ‘live’ making the law inaccessible and unpredictable as the judge can decide on which test to use from his own discretion 

Widening of tort law has confused the point of the idea

The concept of ‘akin to employment’ developed in Christian Brothers has been widened and changed so much. In Cox v MoJ it was decided only three of the points were needed and in Barclays v Various Cs it was decided that the points were helpful but not decisive and should be used as flexible and informative points.  

This law is very good at protecting people.

ANY employer will have insurance for this to pay the compensation that an individual employee will not be able to pay. Claimants need compensation who would not be able to get it without this system. Liability also acts as a deterrent that forces the employer to want to keep standards high to avoid financial loss