VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Establish the tort committed through the usual route
(Negligence, trespass, nuisance?)

Within the course of employment

Committed by an employee?

Economic reality test
Ready-Mixed Concrete v Minister or Pensions and NI
'he who owns the assets and bears the risks is unlikely to be a servant'

Warner Holidays v Secretary of State
Sets out the points to look for an employer relationship

Type of remuneration
(paid through invoice or salary?)

Control of employer
(the more control over the individual, the more likely to be an employee)

Other contractual features

Mutuality of obligations

Okelly
Waiter employed on a casual basis meaning he did not need to work and employer did not need to provide work

Labelling - doesn't matter how the parties label the relationship

TAX/NI

Can employee do other work

Agency workers

Mersey Docks
General rule that the employer who lends their employee to another employer, the original employer remains liable

Fire Systems Ltd v Thermal Transfer
It is possible for both employers to be liable

Where D is not an employee

Cox v Ministry of Justice
Unless you can show that the tort was committed as a result of activity being undertaken on behalf of the employer,
the employees activity is part of the employers business activity and
the employer crated the risk of the tort committed
then relationships out of employment rarely give rise to vicarious liability

Professor Salmond - 'A tort is committed in the course of employment if...

It is expressly or impliedly authorised

Deviations from the route - is it a new independent journey?

Close connection test - is the act/tort closely connected to the employment

Joel v Morrison
Employee was on a 'frolic of his own' and deviated from his route therefore no vicarious liability

Lister v Hesley Hall
Abuse was closely connected with his employment because this tort only occurred due to his job position

JGE v Trustees of PRCDT
Court extended the concept of vicarious liability 'when there is a relationship akin to employment'

or is an unauthorised manner of doing something that is authorised

or is necessarily incidental to something that the employee is employed to do

Limpus v London General Omnibus Co

Century Insurance Co