Vicarious Liability Study Notes

Acknowledgment of Country

  • In the spirit of reconciliation, Bond University acknowledges the Kombumerri people, the traditional Owners and Custodians of the land on which the university now stands.
  • We pay respect to Elders past, present and emerging.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

  • This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Bond University in accordance with section 113P of the Copyright Act 1968 (Act).
  • The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act.
  • Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act.
  • Do not remove this notice.

Welcome to Class

  • This week will cover: what is vicarious liability; the elements.
  • Note: There are some transcription artifacts in the slides (e.g., stray text like "ssed 211 bit MasterCard 100 JH10"); these do not pertain to the core content.
  • Core focus: development of understanding around vicarious liability and its practical/ethical implications.

Key Concepts: Vicarious Liability Overview

  • Central idea: vicarious liability arises when a tort is committed by a wrongdoer in a particular relationship with another party (typically the employer).
  • Connection between wrongful act and relationship in the course of employment.
    • 1. Wrongful act
    • 2. Relationship recognised by law
  • Elements (summary):
    1. Wrongful act by the wrongdoer
    2. Relationship between the wrongdoer and the defendant (employer/employee) recognized by law
  • Elements: ( ext{Wrongful Act})
    ightarrow ( ext{Employer–Employee Relationship})
    ightarrow ( ext{Liability for act in course of employment})

1) WRONGFUL ACT

  • A wrongful act is something the wrongdoer has done that constitutes a tort.
  • The course material states: "A wrongful act, i.e., a tort, has been committed by the wrongdoer."
  • This establishes the factual basis for potential vicarious liability if the other conditions are met.

2) RELATIONSHIP

  • The focus of the course is the employer/employee relationship.
  • Key case reference (illustrative):
    • Bird v DP (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41 – vicarious liability is confined to a relationship of employment.
  • Implication: If the relationship is not an employment relationship, vicarious liability may not attach in the same way (e.g., independent contractor scenarios).

3) CONNECTION BETWEEN WRONGFUL ACT & RELATIONSHIP

  • This is the core connection: the wrongful act must be connected to the employment relationship and occur in the course of employment.
  • Cases and authorities provide tests for this connection (see below).

4) EMPLOYEE vs INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (Key distinction and tests)

  • Case: Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21
    • Fact pattern: A courier company used people as bicycle couriers.
    • Questions to consider:
    • Does the wrongdoer provide skilled labour?
    • How much control does the wrongdoer have over the way they perform their job?
    • Does the defendant represent the wrongdoer as associated with the business? (e.g., uniforms)
    • Do they wear a uniform? How are they paid? Who pays for and controls equipment?
    • Do they have consistent shifts?
  • Purpose of the Hollis v Vabu test: determine whether the relationship is one of employment or independent contracting for vicarious liability purposes.

5) ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE v CONTRACTOR CASES (Illustrative authorities)

  • Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21 – test for employment status; responsibility for torts under vicarious liability depends on employment relationships and control/test factors.
  • CCI G Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman [2023] HCA 21 – intoxicated worker urinated on the face of another worker in shared accommodation; relevance to vicarious liability and the scope of employer duties.
  • Prince Alfred College v ADC [2016] HCA 37 – abuse by a house master at a boarding school; implications for vicarious liability in institutional settings.

6) CASES ILLUSTRATING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN WRONGFUL ACT & EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP

  • 3. CONNECTION BETWEEN WRONGFUL ACT & RELATIONSHIP (illustrative heading)
  • Bugge v Brown (1919) 26 CLR 110 – farmhand made lunch over open fire, which spread to P’s property in the course of employment.
  • Deatons v Flew (1949) 79 CLR 370 – barmaid threw glass at a patron.
  • CCI Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman [2023] HCA 21 – intoxicated worker urinated on face of another worker in shared accommodation.
  • Prince Alfred College v ADC [2016] HCA 37 – abuse by house master at boarding school.

7) WAS THE ACT COMMITTED IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT? (Analytical framework)

  • Question: Was the act in the course of employment?
  • Consider the following factors:
    • Was the act authorised by the employer, or was it unauthorized but so closely connected to an authorised act as to be regarded as a form of carrying it out?
    • Was there an opportunity or occasion created by the role that allowed for the act to occur?
    • Was the wrongdoer acting within the scope of a role that was given by the employer, or did they embark on a detour or frolic of their own?
  • Steps for analysis:
    1. Identify whether there was a wrongdoer who committed a tort.
    2. Identify whether the wrongdoer was an employee.
    3. If the wrongdoer is an employee, apply the in-employment tests; if unclear, apply the Hollis v Vabu framework to determine employer liability.

8) ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIOS: Brendan and the Gold Coast Council (Practice Example)

  • Case scenario: Brendan performs storm cleanup work for Gold Coast Council.
  • Facts:
    • Brendan has no formal contract.
    • He obtains shifts by checking in to a Council-run app.
    • He must wear a dark green shirt, but no logos or insignia.
    • All tools and equipment are supplied by the Council.
    • He works in summer, 4–5 days a week, exclusively for the Council.
    • His role is to clean up debris and not to remove unstable trees.
    • He is not permitted to remove the unstable trees.
    • In December, a large storm hits the Gold Coast and many trees are damaged.
    • While working, Brendan spots a tree in front of Jim’s property with broken branches.
    • Concerned about danger, Brendan climbs onto Jim’s roof to remove the broken branches.
    • While doing so, he drops the branch, cracking several roof tiles.
    • The question: advise the Gold Coast Council on their liability for Brendan’s actions.

9) Was cutting the branch in the course of employment? (Key questions)

  • Was cutting the branch an act within the course of Brendan’s employment?
  • Consider whether:
    • The act was authorised by the employer or so closely connected to an authorised act as to be an improper means of carrying out an authorised act.
    • The role provided both the opportunity and the occasion for the branch cutting.
    • Brendan was on a frolic of his own.
  • Sub-questions to resolve:
    1. Is Brendan liable for trespass to land?
    • Element 1
    • Element 2
    • Defence 2
    1. Is Brendan an employee?
    • Analyze facts suggesting employee status vs contractor status.
      • Facts that suggest he is an employee
      • Facts that suggest he is a contractor

10) PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND DISCUSSION

  • The exercise demonstrates how to determine vicarious liability by combining the wrongful act and the employer–employee relationship.
  • It highlights the importance of: control, integration into the business, and the scope of employment for determining liability.
  • The scenario also touches on trespass to land and the potential remedies available to the employer.

11) TUTORIAL OUTLINE AND PRE-WEEK PREPARATION

  • 1. Tutorial: large problem question — identify causes of action, vicarious liability, and remedies.
  • 2. Topic next week: final forum; recap; exam Q&A.
  • Thank you; next week for further discussion.