vicarious liability

• where one person (usually an employer) is held responsible for the torts of another person (usually his/her employee)
• (barclays bank v various claimants) states liability for tort arises where

  1 . tortfeasor is employee or in a position akin to employment

  2 . there's a close connection between the employment and the tort
• tortfeasor must be an employee or in a position akin to employment
• it must be established if there is a contract of service or for service
• there is no liability for the tort of an independent contractor (barclays bank)
• traditional tests are - control test, integration test, economic reality test
• 1. control test - employee is told what to do and how to do it (yewens v noakes)
• includes hired workers (hawley)
• used for cases of borrowed workers (hawley)
• 2. integration test - is their work fully integrated into the business (stevenson jordan)
• 3. economic reality test - indicates employment or self employment by looking at several factors (ready mix concrete)
• if employment status is unclear then the criteria in the (christians brothers case) must be followed
• a - employer is more likely to be to have means to compensate victim
• b - act will have been committed as a result of activity being taken by employee on behalf of employer
• c - employees activity is likely to be part of business activity of employer
• d - employer created risk by employing employee
• e - employee is under control of employer
• sometimes more than one employer is liable (viasystems ltd)
• must be sufficiently close connection between employment and employees conduct (the tort)
• lister v hesley hall - introduced close connection test, was commission of alleged tort closely connected to the employment?
• this is the starting point (dubai aluminium)
• cox v moj - organisation doesn't have to carry out commercial activity or make a profit - can still be liable
• muhammed v morrisons - what was the nature of the job? was there a connection between this and the conduct? not liable if no close connection
• armes v nottingham cc - is the role integral to the business?
• salmond approach
• there will be liability where employee acts against orders and the employee benefits (rose v plenty)
• but not if they don't (twine v beans express)
• liable if the employee is doing the job negligently (century insurance)
• if employee acts on frolic of their own when tort occurs, employer may not be liable (hilton v thomas burton)
• but can be liable for frolic is they are still being paid in the time it happened (smith v stages)
• if found liable, victim can receive compensation from the employer (civil liability act 1987)