Vicarious liability cases

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions (1968)

Facts

\-Employer used drivers to deliver concrete to customers

\-Workers had to buy vehicles from employer but could only use them for that purpose

\-Employees had to follow employer’s reasonable orders

Law

\-Workers not employees as they owned the vehicles

\-Employees could maintain vehicles and hire replacement drivers if neededq

Express and Echo Publications v Tanton (1999)

Facts

\-Van driver employed someone else to do job of delivering newspapers when not available

\-Van provided by company

Law

Van driver an independent contractor because work could be delegated

Carmichael v National Power

Facts

\-C worked as tour guide at a power station

\-Company contact C when needed to work but C can refuse work

\-C payed hourly

Law

Not an employee as neither side had a legal obligation to each other

Various Claimants v Catholic Welfare Society (2012)

Facts

\-Sufficient relationship test created

Law

\-Unincorporated association directing education is akin to relationship of employer and employee despite binding through vows in stead of a contract

Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board (1942)

Facts

\-Driver of petrol tanker delivering petrol

\-Driver lit a cigarette and threw a match which caused explosion and damaged C’s property

Law

\-Improper mode of employee doing what he was told to do

\-D vicariously liable because action was carried out while doing authorised duties

Limpus v London General Omnibus (1863)

Facts

\-D told drivers not to race or obstruct a bus, driver ignored it and injured a horse in the process of obstructing a rival bus

Law

\-Employer vicariously liable as employee was carrying out an authorised act

Conway v Wimpy (1951)

Facts

\-Employee gave lift to workers from another company around a construction site

\-There were notices saying they can’t give lifts to workers from other companies as well as verbal warnings

\-C was injured getting out of lorry after getting a lift due to employee negligence, company was unaware lifts were being given

Law

\-D company not liable

\-Driver’s act was unauthorised

\

Rose v Plenty (1976)

Facts

\-Milkman employed C to help with rounds

\-Notices say milkman can’t employee children to help

\-C injured due to milkman’s negligent driving

Law

\-Milkman carrying out an unauthorised act but at the same time as doing an authorised act

\-D liable

\-Boy was actively contributing

Twine v Beans Express (1946)

Facts

\-Driver picked up hitchhiker against instructions from employer

\-Hitchhiker injured due to employee’s tort

Law

\-D not liable as activity didn’t benefit employer

Lister v Hesley Hall (2002)

Facts

\-Warden of children’s home abused the children

\-Salmond test would mean D not liable due to unauthorised act

Law

\-New test: were the acts closely connected with his employment

\-Employee’s torts closely connected so employer was liable

Cox v Ministry of Justice 2016

Facts

-C worked in prison kitchen, injured by negligence of another prisoner working in kitchen

Held

-Was D an employee?

-Yes

-Employer liable for torts committed in course of employment

Mohamud v WM Morrison 2016

Facts

-C assaulted by member of Morrisons staff

-Was employee acting in course of employment?

-C was acting in course of employment, doesn’t matter if assault was for personal motives or to benefit employers business.

Joel v Morison (1834)

Facts

-Joel hit by horse and cart whose driver was Morisons agent, agent driving to visit friend

Held

-Driver was doing Morison’s business so wasn’t on a ‘frolic’

Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants 2020

Facts

-Employee with grudge against employee leaked personal information of many employees

Held

-Not acting in course of employment

-Personal motive meant close connection test not satisfied