Vicarious liability evaluation:

• The final argument relating to vicarious liability is about when employees commit a crime in the course of employment. One of the benefits of this is that it enables the victims to receive compensation for the injuries suffered, which they would have not been able to receive if they just sued the employee due to them serving a prison sentence. This means that this area of vicarious liability is enabling the aim of tort to be met.
• However one of the disadvantages of this system is that employers can still be liable where they were not committed directly in the course of employment but in situations where “akin” to employment. This has meant that the courts have to create a “close connection” test, which means that employers should take greater care when selecting their employees. Thus increasing the pressure on employers to act socially responsible.
• The third argument regarding vicarious liability is regarding the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. An advantage of this is that it enables employers to recover compensation that was paid for the claimant from an employee. This means that if this message was given to employees it could act as a deterrent to committing wrongs within the workplace. Leading to a reduce the risk of a compensation culture due to them making sure that they improve their standard of work, leading to the liability not just being put onto the actual employers it is spread out onto their employees.
• The second argument is relating to the Close connection test. One of the advantage of this is that it shows employers that they have a greater social responsibility for their position and they are made to take greater care when selecting their right employees and providing adequate training. This was shown in Century insurance V Northern Ireland Road Transport Board (1942). This shows that the employers should have made it totally clear to its employees that smoking whilst delivering petrol was dangerous.
• However one of the disadvantages of this process is that modern methods of working from home means that it is not always possible for employers to closely supervise their workforce, and it could be said to be unfair on them to accept liability for an employer’s actions when they are working away from the employer’s eyes. For example Twine V Bean’s express (1946). 
• However one of the disadvantages of this system is that employers can still be liable where they were not committed directly in the course of employment but in situations where “akin” to employment. This has meant that the courts have to create a “close connection” test, which means that employers should take greater care when selecting their employees. Thus increasing the pressure on employers to act socially responsible. 
• Vicarious liability is justified because it gives a victim a just and practical remedy; in the event of a successful claim, the claimant is more likely to receive compensation than if they just tried to sue the employee. This is because an employer is more likely to have the financial means to pay any reward compared to an employee, this is due to them having liability insurance which will pay any damages awarded.
• This is shown in Limpus V London General (1976) and Rose V Plenty (1862). These cases also show that the aim of tort is being met due to the innocent claimant being able to claim their loss.
• On the other hand, the principle appears to contradict the concept of fault-based liability, an example of this is shown in Century insurance V Northern Ireland road transport board (1942), this is because the employer might have taken every step to choose, train and supervise its employees but will still be liable for their acts and omissions. This is fair when the employee commits the tortious act in the workplace, but it is less fair when the employer has less control and supervision of the employee’s actions.