Vicarious liability

• What is vicarious liability?

  Where a third person has legal responsibility for the unlawful actions of another. This is commonly seen in the workplace whether the employer is responsible for the actions of his or her employee, who acted in the course of his/her employment
• The control test

  In Yewens v Noakes - test was whether the master had the right to control what the employee did and the way which it was done
• The control test - Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffiths Ltd

  • A hired crane driver negligently injured a person
  • LP: the harbour paid the wage of the driver and had the ability to sack him, making them vicariously liable
• Control test - Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd

  • bouncer assaulted a customer outside the club. Employed by specialist suppliers.
  • LP: Club were held liable as they had too much control over the way he worked
• The control test - viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v thermal transfer

  • C engaged contractors to install air conditioning on their property. Damage to C’s property was caused by a workman S, when he crawled through the duct. S was employed by a subcontractor (D1), but under the supervision of both D1’s foreman and another subcontractor (D2)’s fitter
  • LP: more than one ‘employer’ could be vicariously liable. D2 + D3 were each 50% liable
• The integration or control test

  • According to this test, the master of a ship, a chauffeur, and a staff newspaper reporter are all employees
  • On the other hand, a pilot bringing a ship into port, a taxi driver and a freelance writer are not employees
  • teachers who are examiners may be classed as employed
• Integration or organisation test- Jordan v Harrison v MacDonald and Evan’s

  • An engineer a book that use knowledge that he acquired whilst working from a firm in different capacities. copyright
  • LP: Anyone whose work is inherent and integrated to the business as an employee.
• economic reality or multiple test


  Ready mixed concrete v minister of pensions

  • Vehicle had to be painted in company colours
  • 3 conditions are to be met to show an employment relationship:
  • A relationship similar to employment
  • Which was established by a close connection
  • It was fair just to impose liability on the employer
• Concrete V minister of pensions:

  1. Driver who worked for the company had to buy their own vehicle
  2. Had to have them painted in colours could only use a vehicle for company business
  3. I was a flexible minimum rate was paid
• Economic reality or multiple test


  E v English province of our Lady of charity

  • Question was whether a non-in charge of a children’s home and visiting priest were employees and whether the bishop could be vicariously liable for sexual assault carried out on C
  • LP: 1. A relationship similar to employment. 2. Which was established by a sufficiently close connection 3. it was fair and just to impose liability on the D
• The economic reality or multiple test


  JCE v Trytees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust

  • C alleged that when she was young she was sexually abused and raped by a Roman Catholic priest whilst in children’s home.
  • LP: being an office holder, as opposed to an employee, could make the church vicariously liable for the actions of a priest as the priests relationship with the church was sufficiently close to the employment and it was fair and just to hold the church liable
• The Catholic child welfare Society v Institute of the brothers of Christian schools


  • group of men alleged that they were physically sexually abused by teachers while living at the school
  • LP: the relationship between the Institute and its members were similar to an employer and employee relationship and the sexual abuse connected to that relationship gave rise to vicarious liability
• Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarket


  • a man employed at defendants petrol station assaulter a customer causing him serious injuries
  • LP: if a person is causing on activities as an integral part of the business carried on by defendant and for its benefit, then the business will be vicariously liable
• Limpus v London General


  • bus driver caused an accident when racing despite being told not to race by his employer
  • The employer was liable to the injured claimant as the driver was doing what he was employed to do even against orders
• Rose v plenty


  • a dairy instructed its milkman not to use child hoppers on their grounds. One milkman did use a boy to help him but the boy was injured on the round.
  • Wasn’t following instructions and was not in the course of his employment
• Twine v beans express


  • the husband was killed through the negligence of a driver who had been forbidden to give lift and company forbid passengers and put signs on reminding staff not to do so in company vans
  • Employers were not liable as the driver was doing an unauthorised act and the employers were gaining no benefit from it
• Board v London general omnibus


  • conductor employed to collect first drove her bus without the authority of his employer, injuring the claimant
  • Outside the course of his employment - on a frolic
• N v chief constable of Merseyside police


  • after he had gone off duty the defendant in police uniform offered to take a woman to the police station. The defendant committed sexual assaults on her including rape.
  • Not working as it was out of his working hours
• Mattis v Pollock 


  • bouncer inflicted serious injuries on a customer and was failed for committing serious criminal offences
  • Nightclub was vicarious reliable for the bouncer action as he was encourage use force and his criminal actions were closely connected to his work
• Century insurance v Northern Ireland


  • a petrol tanker drive through a lighted match in a petrol station and this caused an explosion which destroys several cars and damaged some houses
  • The employee was liable to pay compensation as a driver was doing his job even though negligently
• Hilton v Thomas Burton


  • some employees took an unauthorised break by driving the firms van but had had an accident. Accident on the way back and one was killed and his widow suit the employee.
  • Offsite on frolic and not acting in the course of their employment
• • Smith v stages - the employee was driving back to his place of work after working elsewhere and caused an accident.
  • the employee was driving back to his place of work after working elsewhere and caused an accident. The employer was vicariously liable because the court decided that he was acting in the course of his employment as he was being paid during his travelling time.
• Morrisons supermarket Plc v various claimants


  • employee was an accountant in the finance department and he had been disciplined by Morrisons and was unhappy - kept a personal copy of the staff personal details are uploaded it for public access.
  • Uploading the data isn’t related to your work, not in course of your employment, he was on a frolic
• Uber bv v aslam 


  • are Uber drivers direct employees of Uber?
• Definition

  Establish the employer status + are they acting in the course of their employment