vicarious liability

• Barclays Bank v Various Claimants: Doctor, medical assessments, sexual assault, VL does not apply to torts committed by independent contractors
• Control test: Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffiths Ltd: The driver remained the employee of the board as they had the power to tell the driver how his work should be carried out
• Integration test: Stevenson Jordan & Harrison v MacDonald & Evans: A worker will be an employee if his work is fully integrated into the business
• Economic reality test: Ready-mixed concrete v Minister of Pensions: drivers were independent contractors despite wearing company uniform and painting lorry because they owned the lorry and were responsible for its repairs
• relationships akin to employment: priests' relationship to the church was similar to employer-employee relationship was fair and just to impose liability when he sexually abused a young girl
• Relationships akin to employment: Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants: institute's relationship with its members was akin to employment was fair and just to make them liable to the abuse of young school boys in their care
• barclays bank v various claimant- independent contractor as had other clients not just barclays bank, orginasation cannot be liable for independent contractors
• Control test

  Independent contractor not told what to do, employee is told what to do
• Economic reality test


  Multiple factors indicate whether someone is an employee or not
• Integrated test


  The more closely a worker is involved with the business of the employer, the more likely they will be an employee
• Intentional torts

  Close connection test where tort is closely connected to what they are employed to do
• Factors to consider in determining employee status

  • Ownership of tools/equipment
  • Method of payment
  • Tax deductions
  • Description of role
  • Flexibility in work
• Modern developments case

  • Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools
• Elements that prove there's a tort

  • Intentional torts
  • Negligence
  • Unintentional sex offences
  • Batteries
  • Assaults
• Course of employment case

  • Limpus v London General
• Intentional torts case

  • Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets
• Course of employment case

  • Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board
• Course of employment for non-intentional torts

  Salmond test: Acting against orders, Acting outside employment, Negligent act, Acting on a 'frolic' of their own
• Integrated test case

  • Cox v Ministry of Justice
  • prisoners work benefited the prison, and was part of the rehabilitation programme they were in - this made it "akin to employment"
• Control test case

  • Walker v Crystal Palace FC
• Course of employment case

  • Beard v London General Omnibus
• Employee status tests

  • Control test
  • Integrated test
  • Economic reality test
• Economic reality test case

  • Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions
• Modern developments


  Relationships akin to employment could be with intentional torts
• Intentional torts case

  • Lister v Hesley Hall
• Course of employment case

  • Smith v Stages
• ready mixed concrete v minister of pensions -had a wage, lorry painted in company colours, BUT they owned their own vehicles and had to do their own repairs
• catholic child welfare society case- hierarchal structure furthered the aims of the organisation in the school, subject to the control of the people in the welfare society above them made it "akin to employment"
• sue organisation as they have 'bigger pockets'
• close connection test - is the workers conduct closely connected to acts they have been authorised to perform? - if so regarded as during course of employment
• century insurance v northern ireland transport board - satisfied close connection test when lit cigarrete and caused petrol explosion
• beard v london general omnibus- bus conductor drove bus was employed to take tickets only, no vicarious liability "frolic of his own" and no close connection between his job/ what he was employed to do vs what he did
• chell v tarmac- worker detonated explosives as part of a practical joke at work and injured a colleague - no vicarious liability
• smith v stages- travelling outside of work wouldn't be vicarious laibility however, he was being paid during his travel time
• criminal acts of an employee

  lister v hesley hall- intentional tort of sexual abuse, employer was vicariously liable due to close connection to their employment

  mattis v pollock- employed to be aggressive and intimidating but went above this when he beat someone up, actions were closely connected to work
• N v chief constable of merseyside police- was not during work hours was just in uniform when raped claimant, no vicarious liability
• no close connection between crime and course of employment- Morrisons v various claimants- data breach due to vendetta against employer employer was not liable as there was no close connection between the data breach (crime) and course of employment
• Basic definition

  Vicarious Liability is a way of imposing liability on a Defendant for a tort committed by a third party
• A third party (the ‘tortfeasor’) commits a tort

  ● Often negligence, but can include trespass to the person, e.g. battery
• To find vicarious liability, two tests must be applied: