Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

vicarious liability - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Acting against orders
        
        Carrying out a duty in a forbidden way - Limpus v London General Omnibus (1862):
        
        Employer instructed its bus drivers not to race other company’s bus drivers when collecting passengers
        
        One driver caused an accident when racing
        
        The employer was liable to the injured claimant as the driver was doing what he was employed to do - even against orders
        
        Doing something forbidden whilst carrying out a duty - Rose v Plenty (1976):
        
        A dairy instructed its milkman not to use child helpers on their milk rounds
        
        One milkman did use a boy to help him, but the boy boy was injured on the round due to the milkman’s negligent driving of the electric milk float
        
        The dairy was vicariously liable for the milkman’s negligent driving as it was suggested that the dairy benefited from the work done by the boy
      - Employee committing a negligent act
        
        Carrying out a duty negligently - Century Insurance v NI Transport Board (1942):
        
        A petrol tanker was delivering petrol to a garage when he lit a cigarette and threw a match on the ground
        
        This caused an explosion, which destroyed several cars and damaged some nearby houses
        
        The driver’s employer was vicariously liable as the driver was doing his job, even though negligently
        
        The employer was not acting in the course of employment - causes injury or damage to another while doing something outside the area or time of their work - acting on a ‘frolic’ of one’s own
        
        Tort committed outside of working hours - Hilton v Thomas Burton (1961):
        
        Some employees were working on a site away from their workplace
        
        They took an unauthorised break and drove their firm’s van to a cafe for tea, but had an accident on their way back to the site
        
        One of the men was killed and his widow sued the employer
        
        It as decided the employers were not vicariously liable as the men were on an unauthorised ‘frolic’ of their own and not acting in the course of their employment
        
        Going beyond instructions whilst carrying out a duty - Bayley v MSL Railway Co (1873)
        
        Railway employee assaults a passenger by pulling his off a train
        
        The porter was supposed to stop people from getting on the wrong train, but wasn’t supposed to be so violent
        
        Unauthorised lifts - Twine v Beans Express (1946):
        
        The claimant’s husband was killed through the negligence of a driver who had been forbidden to give lifts
        
        This instruction was supported by notices on the side of the van stating who could be carried in it
        
        The employers were not vicariously liable, as the driver was doing an unauthorised act and the employers were gaining no benefit from it
        
        If the employee is acting against the employer’s orders, and the act was not part of his job, then the employer will not be liable
        
        Forbidden act - Beard v London General Omnibus (1900):
        
        A bus conductor, employed to collect fares, drove a bus without the authority of his employer, injuring the claimant
        
        The employer was not liable as the conductor was doing something outside the course of his employment
        
        Acts that have nothing to do with employment - Makanjuola v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1992)
        
        Employee coerced an immigrant into having sex with him
        
        The police officer wasn’t doing anything related at all to his duties - outside the course of his employment
        
        The employer was therefore not liable
        
        Trotman v North Yorkshire (1999) - (headteacher case) employer not held vicariously liable (unauthorised act carried out in an unauthorised manner)
        
        ------>
        
        Bazley v Curry - Canadian supreme court - new way of thinking
        
        ------>
        
        Lister v Hesley Hall (2001) - close connection test - were T’s acts closely connected to T’s employment by D?
  - - - Employee assaults a child who was stealing from his employer’s lorry
      - NB - although this case is seen as implied authorisation it might better be seen as an authorisation act carried out in an unauthorised manner. → employer was held vicariously liable → should not be held liable for something that the tortfeasor does in an unauthorised manner → however, he was acting under the employers instructions to keep the goods in the lorry safe from thieves
    - - The warden of a school for children with emotional difficulties was convicted of sexually assaulting some of the children
      - The HoL decided that there was a close connection between his job and what he did, as the assaults were carried out on school premises
      - As a result, the warden’s employer was liable for his actions
  - - - “Was there a sufficiently close connection between the relationship between D and T [which usually is, but doesn’t have to be employed] and acts which T committed?”
      - Was there a relationship between the Institute and its members akin to an employer and employee relationship?
        
        The relationship between individual brothers and the Institute was actually closer that a relationship between the employer and employee.
      - Was the sexual abuse connected to that relationship in such a way as to give rise to vicarious liability?
    - - Mrs cox works in a prison kitchen - needed a big bag of rice - couldn’t get it down
      - Some prisoners were also assigned work in the kitchen (trustees)
      - Asked a prisoner to take it down - accidentally dropped the bag on her in attempt to get the bag down (negligent/careless)
      - Couldn’t sue the prisoner - could sue the MoJ
      - The Supreme Court claimed that Lord Phillips was correct (sufficiently close relationship and common purpose is correct) - “Harm is wrongfully done by an individual who carries on activities as an integral part of the business activities of the defendant or for its benefit.” (‘business' need not be a commercial activity)
      - Decided that the employee was acting within the field of his employment - there was a close connection between what he did and what he was required to do - employers were vicariously liable
    - - Employee at a petrol station assaulted a customer, causing his serious injuries
      - The Supreme Court considered that the job that the employee was doing, and whether there was a sufficient connection between that job and the assault on the customer
      - It decided that as the employee was acting within the field of his employment - the assault took place at the workplace and within working hours - there was a was a close connection between what he did and what he was required to do
      - As a result, the employers were vicariously liable for his actions
    - - An employee committed acts of fraud and theft
      - The torts of deceit and trespass to property
      - The employee had chosen to fulfil his duties in a dishonest fashion but there was a close connection so the employer was liable
    - - The bouncer’s behaviour was closely connected to his duties
      - Using a knife was criminal and unauthorised but could be seen as closely connected to his usual duties to manhandle customers
- - - - The power to select the employee (did they hire them, did they interview them?)
      - The right to control the method of working (did they train them to work this way?)
      - The right to suspend and dismiss the employee (can they fire them?)
      - The payment of wages (do they pay them wages/salaries?)
- - - - IF YES TO BOTH, B CAN SUE C WHO IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A'S ACTIONS AT WORK