Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Vicarious liability - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Journeys
        
        Joel v Morison (1834):
        
        "...if he was going on a "frolic of his own" without being at all on his master's business, the master won't be liable".
      - Prohibited Acts
        
        Rose v Plenty (1976):
        
        Facts: The defendant's employee is a milkman who was prohibited from ferrying kids during duty work. The employee still hired a 13 year-old to assist him on his duty. The child was injured and sued the employer.
        
        Held: It was in the course of employment as there was benefit to the employer. DOC was owed to the injured child
      - Intentional Acts
        
        Close connection test:
        
        What was the nature of his job/in everyday language
        
        Whether there is sufficient connection between the position in which he was employed and his wrongful conduct to make it right for employer to be held liable based on social justice
        
        Lister v Hesley Hall (2002):
        
        Facts: Employer owned a school for boys with behavioral difficulties who were sent to the school by local authority. The warden in the school sexually abused the boys.
        
        Held: HoL held that the warden's act was deemed to be so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employers vicariously liable
        
        Maga v The Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese (2010):
        
        Facts: Claims arose from alleged sexual abuse of the claimant whilst he was a young boy by an assistant priest. Claim was dismissed at the Lower Court
        
        Held: CA held the Church to be vicariously liable. According to test laid in Lister, the priest's abuse was closely connected to his employment "it would be fair and just to hold the church vicariously liable"
        
        Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society (2012):
        
        Facts: Former children at a children's home sought damages for sexual and physical abuse by a priest. The home was run by a Christian association.
        
        The case extended the law on vicarious liability (liability extends beyond the strict extent of employee's duties and can include illegal activity and such liability can be shared)
        
        Mr. A M Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarket plc (2016): Mr Khan is an employee where his job is to see whether the petrol pumps were in good order to serve customers. Mr Mohamud received racial abuse + physical assault by Mr Khan and was told to never come back. Issue was whether there is sufficient connection between Mr Khan's employment and his conduct to make defendant vicariously responsible,
        
        Held: Interaction as a client-facing employee almost inevitably fall within the scope of their duties and be in connection with the business where they are employed for
        
        Close connection test part 2:
        
        What functions or "field of activities" have been entrusted by the employer to the employee (question should be addressed broadly) and
        
        Is there sufficient connection between the position in which he was employed and his wrongful conduct to make it right for the employer to be held liable for social justice
  - - - Determined in Kooragang Investments v. Richardson & Wrench (1981)
  - - - General Engineering Services v. Kingston & St. Andrews Corp (1988):
        
        Facts: Firefighters engaged in an industrial dispute for payments claims conducted a "go slow". Claimants property caught fire and it took them 17 minutes instead of the normal 3 minutes to arrive
        
        Held: Local authority as employer, not liable as the strike is repudiation of the contract of the contract employment (the strike is not part of the contract)
      - Mohd Yeanikutty v Far East Truck Inc Manufacturing (Pte) Ltd (1984):
        
        Facts: Claimant is a mechanic at the defendant's workshop. C with another worker went to repair a machine at a lift factory. Due to their own negligence, C's hand was crushed. The defendant said that C was to blame for his own injury and had disobeyed instructions.
        
        Held: C was found to be contributory negligent. But since the other worker is partly liable for the negligence, the defendant as his employer = vicariously liable for the same negligence
- - - - Determined in Yewens v Noakest (1880)
      - Hawley v Luminar Leisure plc (2005):
        
        Facts: The nightclub owner was held to be in control and therefore vicariously liable for bouncers actually employed by a security firm
        
        Why? The owner gave the men detailed instructions on how to do the job
    - - Determined in Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison v. MacDonald & Evans (1952)
    - - Per Montreal Locomotive Works v Montreal and A-G Canada (1947)
      - Mercy Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins (1947):
        
        To ask who is entitled to tell the employee the way he must do the work upon which he is ordered/engaged to do AND
        
        Who is entitled to give the orders as to how the works should be done
- - - - Biffa Waste Services v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese Gmbh (2009):
        
        Facts: D contracted to build a plant for the claimant. Plant was damaged by a fire caused by the defendant's sub-contractor. Defendant appealed against finding that it was responsible for the sub-contractor's failure. The judge found that defendant had imposed sufficient control over the way the task had been handled to be considered responsible
        
        Held: Principle that made employer liable for the negligence of the sub-contractor engaged to carry out extra hazardous work was unsatisfactory and should be applied as narrowly as possible. (must only apply when the operations concerned would be hazardous whatever precautions were taken)
      - Lee Kee v Gui See & Anor (1972):
        
        Facts: Defendant were liable for negligence of their sub-contractor who set fire to some unwanted branches. The fires were left unattended so it spread and destroyed property of the Claimant.
        
        Held: If a man lights a fire, he must take reasonable precautions to prevent fire from spreading. This duty is absolute and non-delegable = irrelevant that performance of this duty was given to 3rd party whose negligence subsequently causes the damage.
    - - Tarry v Ashton (1876):
        
        Facts: Claimant was injured when a suspended lamp fell on him. Defendant sought to excuse himself by saying that he employed a sub-contractor to put the lamp into good repair and that the sub-contractor should be liable instead
        
        Held: It is the case where the employer was under a positive and continuing duty to see that the lamp was kept in repair. The duty was placed on the employer before the sub-contractor had come and gone. Such a duty cannot be delegated = employer liable
    - - McDermid v. Nash Dredging ETC. Co. (1987):
        
        Facts: Claimant was employed by defendant where he was assigned to go work on another tug owned by a Dutch company under control of a Dutch Captain. As a result negligence of the tug master who was not an employee of defendant, claimant suffered injuries.
        
        Held: Defendant denied responsibility on the basis that they were no vicariously liable for the conduct of someone else's employee
    - - Morgan v Launchbury (1973):
        
        Held: HoL affirmed that if the vehicle is driven by the owner's agent and the user is driving as the owner's agent for the owner's purposes, the owner = liable