Vicarious liability

Does someone have a relationship of employment?
- Usually easy to establish: a contract of service (e.g. a teacher undertakes to work at a college and teaches you) will make you an employee.
- Whereas a contract for service will not be an employee (you sell a service to the sixth form, e.g. a revision class there’s no obligation other than to perfeorm that service.)

How to figure out if someone is an employee
1) The control test, Lorn Thankerton
2) The intergration, Lord Denning
3) The Economic reality test, Mr Justice McKenna

The control test
- Short V JW Henderson
- The power selection - hire.
- Control methods of working.
- Right to suspend of dismiss (possibly fire them).
- Payment of wages.

The intergration test
Harrison Ltd V McDonald and Evans
- Is the employee essential or ancillary to the business? (It’s a useless test)

The economic reality test
- For some form of remmeration the employee agrees to provide his work and skill to the service of the employer.
- Expressingly or implicity in the terms of service there is a sufficent degree of confrol to make the other an employer.
- The other provisions of the contract are consistant with it being a contract of employment (mutality off obligations)

The course of actions of employment (is it part of your job?) - close connection (Lister V Halsey Hall).

• Were the actions so closely connected to an action that was authorised that it can be deemed to be in the course of employment.

• Closely connected test was set out in Dubai Ltd V Salaam:
  1) The employee was performing functions within their field of employment.
  2) There is a sufficent connection between the employee’s tort and the employer’s business business to justifying the imposition of liability as a matter of justice.

Authorised Acts

• Where an employee is undertaking a task that they have been expressedly or impliedly authorised to do within their employment responsibilities and they commit an act that is regarded as being a course of employment.

Authorised acts done in a way which is prohibited

• Rose V plenty - using a child helper to deliver milk even after being asked several times not to even though they were delivering milk which was part of the companies business (and they gained benefit)

Criminial Acts that are closely connected

• Mohammed V Morrisons supermarket - Word interaction interpreted widely.

• Lister V Halsey Hall - Intentional and unauthorised wrong doing committed for the tortfeasors one benefit can give rise to vicarious liability if they are closely connected to the role they were employed to do.

Actions not closely connected to the course of employment

• 1) Frlics of one’s own - doing something of your own choice that is not part of your employment. - Hilton V Thomas Burton, Unauthorised break, driving firms van, causing a death does not make employer liable.

• 2) Acting outside the remit of employment. - Beard V London General Omnibus, conductor driving bus that was not within his contract.
  - Trustee of the Barry congregation of Jehova V BxB, In the context of a religious group a rape that took place after religious activities took place was not closely connected as it was not part of the job or in anyway linked.

• 3) Criminals are not closely connected when:
  - The tort is intentional.
  - Is of no benefit to the employer.
  - The employee is deliberately set out to harm the employer.
  - An example of this is Morrisons supermarkets V various claimants.