Vicarious liability

?
  • Created by: jesskeayy
  • Created on: 14-04-17 19:48
View mindmap
  • Vicarious Liability
    • Not a tort in it's own right. Holds employers liable for the torts of employees, in the course of employment.
    • It is rare that vicarious liability will exist out of the employment relationship.
    • It is said to be more compensatory to the victim for the employer, with a much larger amount of money than the employee, to pay the damages.
    • The employer will certainly be held liable for damages if he is careless in his selection of employees or fails to correctly discipline his employees for any misconduct.
      • The fact that employers may be held liable for the torts of an employee should deter tortious activity and ensure that employers keep tighter control of an employers activities.
    • Entails 3 basic tests
      • Is the tortfeasor an employee?
      • Was the alleged tort committed in the course of employment.
      • Was it or a tort that was committed? Employers will not be liable for the crimes committed by an employee.
    • Control test
      • The employer has strict control of the doings of his employee. They have the right to dismiss / suspend the employee and control their wages.
        • MERSEYSIDE V HARBOUR BOARD
    • Integration test
      • The employees work must be fully integrated into the workplace. If the person's work is only an accessory to the business, they are not an employee under this test.
    • Economic reality test
      • Used to see whether the employee is employed by a business or is self-employed. They must meet a 3-part test to be considered an employee.
        • Employee must agree to provide work in return for a wage, MINUS TAX AND NI DEDUCTIONS.
        • Employee expressly/impliedly accepts that the work is subject to controls of the employer.
        • There must be a contract of employment.
      • READY MIXED CONCRETE
    • In the course of employment
      • Authorised Acts
        • POLAND V PARR
        • An employer will be liable for acts that he has expressly authorised.
      • Authorised acts done in an unauthorised manner
        • LIMPUS V LONDON BUS COMPANY
        • Where the employee is engaged in their own work but do something expressly prohibited by the employer
        • CENTURY INSURANCE
          • Employee carries out his work negligently
        • ROSE V PLENTY
          • employee carrying out unauthorised actions
    • Outside the course of emplyment
      • Employee engages in strictly prohibited acts, not relating to his work
        • BEARD V LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS
      • Employee is on a 'frolic of his own'.
        • HILTON V THOMAS BURTON
      • Unauthorised acts
        • TWINE V BEANS EXPRESS
    • Liability for the crimes of employees
      • Dishonesty within the course of employment falls on the employer
        • LLOYD V GRACE SMITH
      • LISTER V HESLEY HALL
        • New test developed to cover situations where someone may be at risk/ a victim, to enable liability to be imposed easily.
          • MATTIS V POLLOCK
      • LISTER V ROMFORD ICE
        • This case destroys the purpose of vicarious liability

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »