vicarious liability

• what is the definition of vicarious liability?

  where one person, usually an employer, is held liable for someone else's tort—even though it isn't their fault.
• what are the 3 elements of vicarious liability?

  A tort must be committed, any will qualify.

  The tort was committed by an employee, not an independent contractor

  The tort was committed in the course of the employee's employment, so not on a frolic of their own.
• what created the 3 elements of vicarious liability?

  They were created by Salmond in his 1907 text, the law of torts
• Vicarious liability does not apply to independent contractor.
• In terms of element 2 of vicarious liability, what is the oldest test to determine if someone is an employee or not?

  The control test; it is whether the master has control over the worker.
• What case shows how even though an employee was supplied by a specialist supplier, they were still an employee?

  Hawley v Luminar leisure
• what is the second test to see if a worker is an employee?

  Lord denning created the integration or organisation test, it states that a worker will be an employee if their work is fully integrated into the business; if a person's work is only accessory to the business, that person isnt an employee.
• what is the economic reality test?

  This is the most latest test, it is the most likely used test. three conditions have to be met:

  Employee agrees to provide work / skills in return for a wage

  The employee accepts work will be subject to the control of the employer

  All other considerations are consistent with there being a contract of employment.
• What case shows how the other type of relationship outside of employment that can be considered under vicarious liability is where the harm is done by someone who carries out an activity that is an integral part of the business?

  Cox v Ministry of Justice
• what case shows that the employee must have been acting in the course of their employment, not a frolic of their own?

  Joel v Morison
• what case created the economic reality test?

  Ready mixed concrete v Minister of pensions and Northern Ireland
• what is the significance of cox v ministry of justice?

  It adds a new definition on what is considered an employment relationship- through this case thr supreme court agreed that a relationship where the harm is done by someone who carries out an activity that is an integral part of the business can be one where vicarious liability can be held.
• what is the significance of the case of century insurance v northern ireland road transport board?

  It shows how the generally speaking if an employee is doing their job in a negligent or dangerous way, their employer will be held liable.
• What case shows that if an employee is acting negligently or dangerously when doing their work will lead to their employer being held liable?

  Century insurance v northern ireland road transport board
• what is the significance of the case of rose v plenty?

  It shows how the employer will be liable even if the worker acts against orders
• What is the significance of the case of limpus v london general?

  It shows how the employer will be held liable even if the worker acts against orders
• What cases show how even if the employee acts against orders, their employer will be held liable?

  Rose v Plenty and Limpus v London General
• what case shows how if an employee performs a work task which does not form part of their duties, employer will not be vicariously liable?

  Beard v London general omnibus co
• what case shows if the employee does something which they have been expressly told not to do, which doesnot form an integral part of their job, employer will not be vicariously liable?

  Hilton v Thomas burton
• What is the significance of the case of hilton v thomas burton?

  it shows how if an employee does something which theyhave been expressly told not to do, which doesnot form an integral part of their job, employerwill not be vicariously liable
• what is the significance of the case of beard v london general omnibus co?

  it shows how If an employee performs a work task which does not form part of his duties, employer will not be vicariously liable
• in terms of element 3, what questions were asked by the case of lister v hesley?

  Was the relationship between employer and worker akin to employment, and was the commission of the alleged tort closely connected to the employment?
• what is the significance of the cases of lister v hesley hall and mohamud v Morisson's supermarket?

  Both show how an employer may be liable for an employee's crime if the crime has a close connection to what the employee is employed to do
• what cases show how the employer may also be liable if the employee commits a crime whilst at work if the crime has a “close connection” to what the the employee is employed to do?

  Lister v Hesley Hall

  Mohamud v Morrison's supermarket
• In terms of element 3, what is the significance of the case of Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants and the institute of the brothers of the christian?

  It provides the 5 criteria to determine if it is fair and reasonable to impose vicarious liability on an employer
• In terms of element three, what are the 5 criteria to determine if it is it is fair and reasonable to impose vicarious liability on an employer?

  If the employer has the means to compensate and is expected to be insured

  Tort is committed through an activity the employee is carrying out for the employer

  Employee's activity is likely to be part of the employer's business

  Employer created risk of a tort being committed by employing the employee

  Employee, to a degree, is under the control of the employer
• what case gave the criteria to see if it is fair and reasonable to impose vicarious liability on an employer?

  Catholic child welfare society v various claimants and the institute of the brothers of the christian
• what case gives an example of a worker acting in course of their employment?

  Century insurance v Northern Ireland road transport board
• what is the significance of the case of limpus v general omnibus co?


  It shows how an employer will be liable if their employee was doing their job in an unauthorised way.
• what is the significance of the beard v london general omnibus co case?

  It shows that if an employee was acting on a frolic of their own, the employer will not be liable.
• What case shows how if an employee is acting on a frolic of their own, their employer will not be liable?

  Beard v London General Omnibus Co
• What case shows how an employer will be liable if an employee was doing their job in an unauthorised way which resulted in a tort?

  Limpus v london general omnibus co
• what case gives an example of where an employee commits a tort that is “so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just towith his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employee's employer vicariously liable”?


  Lister v Hesley hall LTD
• what is the significance of the case of lister v hesley hall LTD?

  It is an example of where an employee is in the course of employment when they commit a tort “so closely connected with their employment that it would be fair and just hold the employee's employer vicariously liable”