Evaluation of vicarious liability

• Definition of vicarious liability

  Defendant can be held liable for tort committed by a third party
• Vicarious liability gives the victim a just and practical remedy
• The employer is more likely to have?

  Financial means to pay and has To have liability insurance
• Case Rose V Plenty eval of VL

  employer was liable even though employee acted against expressed instructions
• Employers are subjected to compulsory …

  Insurance So the company pays not the employer
• What does the insurance company do when a claim is made?

  Spread the cost among all policy holders making the burden of compensation managble
• increasing insurance premiums do what?

  Act as a deterrence to poor employment practices
• Why should the employer take responsibility?

  they benefit from the work so should bear the cost/risk
• With the risk of being liable?

  It makes the employer supervise workers properly
• The employer has what over an employe?

  control and practice of work
• It is fair to hold an employer liable if the employee followed instructions and this lead to the tort
• What did Century insurance V NI road transport say about VL?

  Should have taught workers how dangerous it was to smoke at petrol station
• The rules of VL achieve social justice how?

  organisations which have failed to guard against sexual abuse r held liable Catholic welfare society
• Why is VL unfair?

  Passes liability onto innocent party

  inconsistent as it targets employer since they can bear financial loss

  tort occurs before employer can stop it

  modern work practices (work from home little control)

  more than one employer can be held liable where they half little or no control

  Offers claimants a option to chose better off party
• Case that links to modern work practices That shows unfairnes?

  Limpis V London general omnibus
• The rules on whether an employee is working in the course of employment may lease to?

  Inconsistent outcomes
• (in the course of employment) issues?

  Difficult to justify differences between cases

  eg Rose V Plenty and Twine V Beans exppress
• Cases that show the difficulty to justify difference between cases in the course of employment?

  Rose V plenty and Twine V beans express. In both these cases they have lifts but only in Twine liability was avoided as the employer revived no benifit
• because It’s hard to justify the difference between cases in course of e what does this mean for employers?

  They are left vulnerable as they can’t creat clear rules for employers
• Course of employment inconsistent decisions relating to road accidents?

  Hailton V Thomas Burton = employer not liable as the workers on a frolic of their own ( left liable for a window even though her husband died during work time in the works van)

  Smith V stages = liable as the worker was traveling to work

  only difference was purpose of the journey
• Is the law to favourable to claimant?

  More flexible approach to test of employment (special relations ship ( CATHOLIC CHILD WELFARE SOCIETY)

  Creating uncertainty stretches relation ship 

  BARCLAYS BANK confirming vicarious l doesn’t extend to independent contractors 

  Close connection test broadened scope of vl 

  Employer can argue an employee was Ona frolic of their own 

  Employer only liable if the employment itself involved a risk that a crime could be committed