Vicarious Liability
- Created by: lulu_kate
- Created on: 24-03-19 14:54
View mindmap
- Vicarious liability (VL)
- 3 Tests to establish if a person is an employee
- Economic Reality Test
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South east) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1967) High Court held that a contract of service exists if:
- You agree for the employer to "control" your work
- You are being paid by the employer for the skill/service you do
- Other provisions of the contract are consistent with it being a contract of service
- Working Hours
- Method of payment
- Relative responsibility for providing equipment
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South east) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1967) High Court held that a contract of service exists if:
- Control Test
- Established in Yewen v Noakes (1880)
- Considers whether the employer has the power to control the nature of work done and how it is done
- An old test that uses the concept of the master-servant relationship.
- Organisation Test
- Test relies on a distinction between a contract of service and a contract for service
- FOR SERVICE: You carry out jobs but NOT because you work for the company
- E.g- A Sub-contractor
- OF SERVICE: You carry out jobs because you work for the company
- FOR SERVICE: You carry out jobs but NOT because you work for the company
- Stevenson, Jordon & Harrison Ltd v MacDonald & Evans (1952)
- Test relies on a distinction between a contract of service and a contract for service
- Economic Reality Test
- A Frolic Of His Own
- An employer is not liable for the torts committed by an employee who is on a frolic of his own.
- Storey v Ashton (1869)
- Two employees ran over C on a frolic. D was not liable for his employees
- Authorised Act
- An employer is vicariously liable for the torts of his employee if the employee is doing an act authorised by the employer in the authorised manner
- GENERAL RULE
- An employer is VL for an authorised act done in an unauthorised manner.
- Employer isn't responsible if the employee is acting beyond the scope of his employment
- Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board (1942)
- Employer was held liable as employee was doing an authorised act, even though it was done in an unauthorised manner
- Iqbal v London Transport Executive (1973)
- Employer was not VL as employee was acting beyond the scope of his employment
- An Unlawful Act Of An Employee
- An employer will only be held to be VL for the unlawful acts of his/her employee if there is a closeness of connection between the employment and the unlawful act
- Lister and Others v Helsey Hall Ltd (2002)
- The HoL held that owner of the school was VL of sexual abuse by one of the wardens due to closeness of connection
- Gravil v Carroll & Redruth Rugby Club (2008)
- D punched C during rugby match causing fracture. CoA held that rugby club was VL
- Liability for torts of independent contractors
- A person or company may in some circumstances be held liable for the torts committed by an independent contractor to visitors or non visitors
- 3 Tests to establish if a person is an employee
Comments
No comments have yet been made