Vicarious liability

What three things must be established for vicarious liability?

* Tortfeasor committed a tort
* Tortfeasor is an employee/ in a position akin to employment
* Tort committed in the course of employment

1 of 20

What are the two types of torts?

Intentional + non intentional

2 of 20

What must there be for vicarious liability to be found (i.e. between tortfeasor and employer)

There must be a relationship between the two people and a clear connection between the relationship and tortfeasor's wrong doing.

3 of 20

What are the three traditional tests for establishing whether tortfeasor is an employee?

1. control test
2. Integration test
3. Economic reality test

4 of 20

What is the control test?

It distinguishes between independent contractors (i.e. told what to do ) and employees (i.e. told what and how to do it).

5 of 20

What is a key case for the control test?

Walker v crystal palace - walker was an employee for he was obliged to follow the club's general instructions

6 of 20

What is the integration test?

The more closely a person is involved with the core business of the employer, the more likely they are to be an employee.

7 of 20

What case is key to the integration test?

Cox v ministry of justice - prisoner had sufficient connection between tortious act (negligence) and his role in the prison's operations.

8 of 20

What is the economic reality test?

This is a modern classification which looks at various factors.

9 of 20

Name 3 factors that the economic reality test may consider.

Whether contract refers to worker as an employee; whether employee provides work for a wage; whether there is ability for worker to delegate his work to another without permission.

10 of 20

What is the main distinguishment between independent contractors and employees?

Employee work under a contract of services while independent contractors work under a contract for services.

11 of 20

Which test is used for non intentional torts to establish whether it was 'in the course of employment'?

Salmond test - this states employer to be liable for wrongful acts that they authorised or wrongful and unauthorised mode of an authorised act.

12 of 20

What three cases are used for non intentional torts committed within the course of employment?

Poland v parr - had implied authorisation
Limpus v omnibus - acting in an unauthorised mode of an authorised act
Century insurance - acting in a purely careless manner.

13 of 20

What three cases illustrate a non intentional tort committed outside the scope of employment?

Beard v London - side streets - not within scope of employment
Story v Ashton - off route to see BIL - 'frolic of his own'
Twine v beans express - Giving unauthorised lifts

14 of 20

What test is used for intentional torts to establish whether it was committed within 'the course of employment'?

The close connection test - courts must establish a sufficiently close connection between what the employee was employed to do and their conduct.
Forms two stages of the test.

15 of 20

What are the two stages for the close connection test?

1. Whether rs is capable of giving rise to VL?
2. Was there a sufficiently close connection between tortious act and rs between D and tortfeasor?

16 of 20

What 3 cases are used to show the close connection test?

Lister v Hesley - warden SA'd boys he took care of - VL due CCT
Mohamud v Morrisons - CC between assault and duty
Mattis v pollock - VL - acted during employment

17 of 20

Where the traditional tests are not appropriate, which test is used and what case is principle to this?

'akin to employment' after the Christian brother case - this is where employer is liable for acts of a relationship sufficiently close to that of employee and employer

18 of 20

What are the 5 criteria when establishing something as 'akin to employment'?

close connection; integration; Tort = more than likely a part of organisation's business activity; organisation created a risk of tort; Organisation is more likely to possess necessary funds to compensate V; person under the control.

19 of 20

What does the Armes case explore?

Further expands on the concept of akin to employment to rs's far from that of employee and employer - council held VL for the abuse of a child by the foster parents they placed her with.

20 of 20

Get Revising

Vicarious liability

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources: