Vicarious liability
- Created by: __Jess
- Created on: 29-11-22 18:55
View mindmap
- Vicarious liability
- Employee tests
- Control test
- Employee is told what to do and how to do it, whilst an independent contractor is just told what to do
- Walker v Crystal Palace FC
- Mersey Docks v Coggins
- Employee is told what to do and how to do it, whilst an independent contractor is just told what to do
- Integrated test
- The more closely a worker is involved with the core business of the employer, the more likely he is to be an employee
- Cox v Ministry of Justice
- The more closely a worker is involved with the core business of the employer, the more likely he is to be an employee
- Economic reality test
- Considers various factors which may indicate employment:
- Ownership of tools or equipment
- Method of payment
- Tax and pension deducted from wages
- Description of role
- Independence and flexibility
- Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions
- Considers various factors which may indicate employment:
- Control test
- Course of employment tests
- Employer can be liable
- Acting against orders
- Limpus v London General Omnibus
- Rose v Plenty
- Twine v Beans Express
- Committing a criminal act
- Mattis v Pollock
- N v CC of Manchester Police
- Lister v Hesley Hall
- Negligent act
- Century Insurance v NI Road Transport
- Acting against orders
- Employer cannot be liable
- Acting outside employment
- Beard v London General Omnibus
- Acting on a frolic of their own
- Smith v Stages
- Hilton v Thomas Burton
- Acting outside employment
- Employer can be liable
- Akin to employment
- E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity
- If the defendant is clearly employed, but does not fit the other tests
- Christian Brothers
- Employee tests
Comments
No comments have yet been made