Vicarious Liability

• Introduction


  VL - One person is liable for the torts of another

  • Employers is VL for torts of an employee
  • Employee remain primarily liable

  1. Tort must be committed by the employee
  2. Must be done in the course of the employees employment - NOT A FROLIC OF THEIR OWN
• Stage 1.1 - Who is an employee?


  Originally use the Control Test

  • A person told what to do and how to do it
  • Virtually impossible to use now with high skilled workers
• Stage 1.2 - Who is an employee?

  Multiple Test - Ready Mix Concrete v Minister of Pensions

  • A person agrees to provide work in return for payment
  • Express or impliedly agrees to be under control of employer

  Also includes:

  • Whether a wage is being paid, tax and national insurance
  • Method of payment
  • Who provides tools/equipment
  • Exercise of control over work done/hours
  • Power to fire/hire assistants or replacements
• Stage 1.3 - Who is an employee?

  Connection Test

  • Close connection or relationship akin to employment between what D did and what he is required to do
  • E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity
• Stage 1.4 - More than one employer

  Viasystems v Thermal Transfer

  • If both companies had some control over the employee then they can both be held responsible and liability shared equally
• Stage 2.1 - Course of employment


  Employee carries out an authorised act in an unauthorised manner

  • employer will be vicariously liable even if the employee performs the act in an unauthorised manner or in a way that was prohibited
  • Limpus v London Omnibus
  • HOWEVER: Twine v Beans Express - Employee doing an unauthorised act and employers gained no benefit from it

  Where the employee was doing authorised work negligently

  • Century Insurance

  Travelling to and from work

  • If employee is being paid or given travel expenses
  • Smith v Stages
• Stage 2.2 - Outside scope of employment


  'Frolic of their own'

  • Hilton v Thomas Burton - Employee takes a detour for their own benefit
  • Twine v Beans - Giving unauthorised lifts
  • Heasemens v Clarity - Activities that have no relevance to job

  Employee committing a criminal act

  • employer may be liable if there is a ‘CLOSE CONNECTION’ between the crime and what the employee was employed to do
  • Mohamud v Morrison's
  • CONTRAST: N v Chief Constable - No connection, just made use of uniform
• Other Areas


  • PARENT – CHILD​
  • THE BISHOP OF A CHURCH FOR SEXUAL ABUSE BY ONE OF HIS PRIESTS​ - E v ENGLISH PROVINCE OF OUR LADY OF CHAIRT 2012​
  • EMPLOYER WHOSE EMPLOYEE ASSAULTED A CUSTOMER​ - MOHAMUD V MORRISON’S
  • PRISON SERVICE WHERE A PRISONER NEGLIGENTLY INJURED THE CATERING MANAGER​ - COX