Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Vicarious Liability - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Facts: A man and his family occupied a number of rooms within an office building on the alleged basis that he was the caretaker of the building owner. The man was actually a clerk who was paid a salary of £150 per annum.
      - Held: An employee, or a 'servant', is defined as a 'person who is subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work'. The man was held not be a 'servant' or an employee of the building owner as the owner had no right to control the man's work. He merely enjoyed residence of the building with his family and earned that salary in a separate role.
  - - - Facts: An engineer wrote a book that used his acquired knowledge from his work for a firm in different capacities. S5(1) Copyright Act 1911 says that if the author of a work was under 'contract of service', then the first owner of the copyright shall be the person by whom the author was employed.
      - Held: They distinguished between a 'contract of service' and 'contract for services' provided to the firm. They applied the traditional control test but further stipulated that a person is considered an employee under a 'contract of service' when the work is integrated in that of the business/integral part, whereas an independent contractor is merely an accessory to a business. In this case, the engineer was found to be the author of the work, but specific material that he had acquired whilst he was an employee fell under the Act and should be excluded from publication.
  - - - Facts: A driver contracted with a mixed concrete company for the delivery of concrete. The contract declared him an 'independent contractor' and set out wages and expenses. The driver was to purchase his own vehicle, but with the requirement it be painted in the company colours. He was to drive the vehicle himself but in compliance with certain company rules.
      - Held
        
        Whether a contract creates a 'master and servant' between an employer and employee is determined on the basis of contractual rights and duties, and that the terminology used in the contract is irrelevant. Thus, the fact that the contract termed the driver to be an 'independent contractor' is not important.
        
        Employment under a contract of service exists when: (1) a person agrees to perform a service/provide skill in return for a wage; (2) a person agrees to the an employer who will exercises a degree of control; and (3) nothing in the terms of work is inconsistent with employment.
        
        The driver was held to have sufficient freedom in the performance of his contractual obligations as he was free to decide on his vehicle aswell as his labour, fuel and other requirements in the performance of the task. He was an independent contractor and not an employee of the company
- - - - Facts: The defendant employer sent 2 employees to deliver some wine but, on their way back, they went on a diversion to do some business of their own. While doing this, the employees ran over the claimant, owing to the negligence of the employee driving a horse and cart.
      - Held: The defendant employer was not liable for the negligence of the employee because the employee was on a 'frolic of his own'. He was outside the general course of his work/duties in employment.
  - - - Facts: A bus driver had been expressly prohibited to race with or obstruct other buses. He disobeyed this order and caused a collision with the claimant's bus while racing another bus.
      - Held: The defendant employers were vicariously liable because he was doing an act which was authorised (driving a bus), which meant he was in the course of his employment, even though the way he was doing the job was improper and had been prohibited.
  - - - Facts: The C was on his way to work on an aerodrome when he hailed a lorry belonging to the D company, driven by one of the employees. The lorry was taking a number of the D's servants to their work. The driver had been expressly told by the company transport manager that he could only transport the company's men. Nevertheless, the driver gave the claimant a lift for a short distance. When the claimant dismounted the lorry, he caught his leg under a wheel of the lorry. and later had to have it amputated.
      - Held: Both the lorry driver and the C were equally responsible for the accident. C was effectively a trespasser when he got into the lorry, but its irrelevant whether he knew that or not. The lorry driver performed a wrongful act in allowing him, who was not an employee of the company, to ride the lorry. It was something he was not employed to perform at all, the act was outside the scope of employment. The company therefore couldn't be held liable for the C's injury as a result of his trespass.
    - - Facts: The defendant delivered milk for his employer, who specifically notified him and other employees, that they weren't allowed to use children to help them with their deliveries. The defendant went against this order and drove negligently whilst the child was on the back of his truck and he suffered foot injuries. A claim was brought against the defendant, and his employers via vicarious liability.
      - Held: The mere order by the employer not to undertake the act didn't immediately exclude the prospect of vicarious liability. The defendant employee was held to be in the course of his employment, and thus the employers were vicariously liable.