Vicarious liability

  • Created by: __Jess
  • Created on: 29-11-22 18:55
View mindmap
  • Vicarious liability
    • Employee tests
      • Control test
        • Employee is told what to do and how to do it, whilst an independent contractor is just told what to do
          • Walker v Crystal Palace FC
          • Mersey Docks v Coggins
      • Integrated test
        • The more closely a worker is involved with the core business of the employer, the more likely he is to be an employee
          • Cox v Ministry of Justice
      • Economic reality test
        • Considers various factors which may indicate employment:
          • Ownership of tools or equipment
          • Method of payment
          • Tax and pension deducted from wages
          • Description of role
          • Independence and flexibility
        • Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions
    • Course of employment tests
      • Employer can be liable
        • Acting against orders
          • Limpus v London General Omnibus
          • Rose v Plenty
          • Twine v Beans Express
        • Committing a criminal act
          • Mattis v Pollock
          • N v CC of Manchester Police
          • Lister v Hesley Hall
        • Negligent act
          • Century Insurance v NI Road Transport
      • Employer cannot be liable
        • Acting outside employment
          • Beard v London General Omnibus
        • Acting on a frolic of their own
          • Smith v Stages
          • Hilton v Thomas Burton
    • Akin to employment
      • E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity
      • If the defendant is clearly employed, but does not fit the other tests
        • Christian Brothers


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »