Vicarious liability
- Created by: jesskeayy
- Created on: 14-04-17 19:48
View mindmap
- Vicarious Liability
- Not a tort in it's own right. Holds employers liable for the torts of employees, in the course of employment.
- It is rare that vicarious liability will exist out of the employment relationship.
- It is said to be more compensatory to the victim for the employer, with a much larger amount of money than the employee, to pay the damages.
- The employer will certainly be held liable for damages if he is careless in his selection of employees or fails to correctly discipline his employees for any misconduct.
- The fact that employers may be held liable for the torts of an employee should deter tortious activity and ensure that employers keep tighter control of an employers activities.
- Entails 3 basic tests
- Is the tortfeasor an employee?
- Was the alleged tort committed in the course of employment.
- Was it or a tort that was committed? Employers will not be liable for the crimes committed by an employee.
- Control test
- The employer has strict control of the doings of his employee. They have the right to dismiss / suspend the employee and control their wages.
- MERSEYSIDE V HARBOUR BOARD
- The employer has strict control of the doings of his employee. They have the right to dismiss / suspend the employee and control their wages.
- Integration test
- The employees work must be fully integrated into the workplace. If the person's work is only an accessory to the business, they are not an employee under this test.
- Economic reality test
- Used to see whether the employee is employed by a business or is self-employed. They must meet a 3-part test to be considered an employee.
- Employee must agree to provide work in return for a wage, MINUS TAX AND NI DEDUCTIONS.
- Employee expressly/impliedly accepts that the work is subject to controls of the employer.
- There must be a contract of employment.
- READY MIXED CONCRETE
- Used to see whether the employee is employed by a business or is self-employed. They must meet a 3-part test to be considered an employee.
- In the course of employment
- Authorised Acts
- POLAND V PARR
- An employer will be liable for acts that he has expressly authorised.
- Authorised acts done in an unauthorised manner
- LIMPUS V LONDON BUS COMPANY
- Where the employee is engaged in their own work but do something expressly prohibited by the employer
- CENTURY INSURANCE
- Employee carries out his work negligently
- ROSE V PLENTY
- employee carrying out unauthorised actions
- Authorised Acts
- Outside the course of emplyment
- Employee engages in strictly prohibited acts, not relating to his work
- BEARD V LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS
- Employee is on a 'frolic of his own'.
- HILTON V THOMAS BURTON
- Unauthorised acts
- TWINE V BEANS EXPRESS
- Employee engages in strictly prohibited acts, not relating to his work
- Liability for the crimes of employees
- Dishonesty within the course of employment falls on the employer
- LLOYD V GRACE SMITH
- LISTER V HESLEY HALL
- New test developed to cover situations where someone may be at risk/ a victim, to enable liability to be imposed easily.
- MATTIS V POLLOCK
- New test developed to cover situations where someone may be at risk/ a victim, to enable liability to be imposed easily.
- LISTER V ROMFORD ICE
- This case destroys the purpose of vicarious liability
- Dishonesty within the course of employment falls on the employer
Comments
No comments have yet been made