vicarious liability cases

• Halwey v Luminar Leisure case:

  • Facts: Bouncer provided by specialist suppliers assaulted nightclub customer
  • Legal Principle: Club employed bouncer so was vicariously liable
• Ready Mixed Concrete case:

  • Issue: Should the driver or the company be responsible for paying national insurance contributions
  • Legal Principle: The multiple factor test to establish if an employee is employed or not
• Limpus v London General case:

  • Facts: Bus driver caused accident when racing, despite being instructed not to do so
  • Legal Principle: Employer liable to victim as the driver was doing his job even if it was against orders
• Rose v Plenty case:

  • Facts: A dairy instructed its milkmen not to use child helpers, but a boy was injured while helping a milkman on his round
  • Legal Principle: Dairy vicariously liable as it was benefitting from the boy’s work
• Hilton v Thomas Burton case:

  • Facts: Employees took an unauthorised break and had an accident while driving firm’s van, killing one of them
  • Legal Principle: Employer's not liable as the workers were on a ‘frolic’ of their own
• Twine v Bean’s Express case:

  • Facts: Claimant's husband killed by negligent driving of worker who had been forbidden to give lifts
  • Legal Principle: Employers not liable as the driver was doing an unauthorised act and the firm was gaining no benefit
• Beard v London General Omnibus case:

  • Facts: Bus conductor drove bus negligently injuring the victim
  • Legal Principle: Employers not liable as conductor acted outside the course of his employment
• Lister v Hesley Hall case:

  • Facts: Warden sexually assaulted children with emotional difficulties at his school
  • Legal Principle: Employers liable as there was a ‘close connection’ between his job and what he did
• Catholic Child Welfare Society case:

  • Facts: Teachers sexually abused pupils at the school in which they were employed
  • Legal Principle: Employers liable as the relationship between employers and teachers was ‘akin’ to employer/employee relations and abuse was connected to that relationship
• Cox v Ministry of Justice case:

  • Facts: Prison employee assaulted by prisoner
  • Legal Principle: Not necessary for employer to be carrying out commercial activity, it is enough to be carrying on activities in furtherance of its own interests to be liable
• Mohamud v Morrisons Supermarkets case:

  • Facts: Employee assaulted customer at petrol station
  • Legal Principle: Employee acted in the field of his employment, making employers liable
• Armes v Nottingham County case:

  • Facts: Child abused by foster carers
  • Legal Principle: Foster carers integral to employer's “business activity” to make them liable
• Barclays Bank v Various Claimants case:

  • Facts: Doctor assaulted prospective employees while carrying out medical examinations on behalf of bank
  • Legal Principle: Bank not liable for actions of independent contractor