Vicarious Liability Cases

VICARIOUS LIABILITY
JGE v Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust (2012) – Diocesan Trust could be
vicariously liable for acts of sexual abuse committed by a parish priest in the diocese,
despite the Trust not being a legal entity, the charitable trust must act in accordance with
domestic law
Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurances (1968) –
the economic reality test was applied, it was found that the lorry owners were unlikely to be
acting as agents or employees of the company but were, in reality, independent contractors
working under a contract for services
Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951) – Ministry was liable for the negligence of doctors
who were employed by it on contracts of service. The test to be used concerns the extent to
which the employer can control how the individual does the job.
Stevenson Jordan & Harrison v Macdonald & Evans (1952) – Denning LJ described the
difference between a contract of service and a contract for services. “It is often easy to
recognise a contract of service when you see it, but difficult to say where the difference lies.
A ship´s master, a chauffeur, and a reporter on the staff of a newspaper are all employed
under a contract, of service; but a ship´s pilot, a taximan, and a newspaper contributor are
employed under a contract for services.”
Various Claimants v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools (2013) – UKSC
held that it is possible for unincorporated associations (such as the Ds) to be vicariously
liable for wrongful acts committed by its members
Cox v Ministry of Justice (2014) – C, a catering manager in a prison suffered injury as a
result of negligence of a prisoner performing paid work. CA held that the relationship
between C and D was akin to employment.
Morsey Docks v Coggins & Griffith Ltd (1947) – a mobile crane was hired with a driver
who negligently injured C, the more complicated it is, the more likely the main employer will
remain liable + factors who pays the employee´s insurance and duration are relevant
Viasystems Ltd v Thermal Transfer Ltd (2006) – CA held it is possible for 2 separate
employers to be vicariously liable for the tort of 1 employee = dual vicarious liability
ICI Ltd v Shatwell (1965) – in defiance of his employer´s orders and statutory safety
measures, the C went to test some detonators without taking the required safety measures
= commitment of tort is a must
Sir John Salmond´s test – A master is liable even for acts which he has not authorised,
provide that they are so connected with acts which he has authorised that they may be
rightly regarded as modes – although improper modes – of doing them.
An act will be in the course of employment under the test if it is
(a) a wrongful act authorised by the employer, or
(b) a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by employer.
Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board (1942) – tanker
driver who, while delivering petrol, lit a cigarette and carelessly discarded a match which
caused a fire – this was held to be done within the course of his employment
General Engineering Services v Kingston and St Andrew Corp (1989) – firemen took 5
times long to drive to a scene of a fire, this was held as a wrongful and unauthorised act is
outside the course of employment
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001) – proper approach to the course of employment is no
longer to ask the question whether the acts were modes of doing authorised acts in the
course of employment (all pre-2001 should be reconsidered)
 in this case a warden of a residential school for children (pastor) was liable for
sexual assaults and the local authority was held vicariously liable (they selected him)
Beard v London General Omnibus Co (1900) – employer of a bus conductor who, in the
absence of the driver, negligently drove the bus himself, was held not liable
Storey v Ashton (1869) – employer was not liable for injuries caused by employees
because at the time of the accident, the driver was not acting in the course of employment
(they departed from their duties), he was on a new and independent journey (to visit
relatives)
Smith v Stages (1989) – an employee travelling in the employer´s time from home to a
workplace other than the regular workplace or between workplaces will be within the course
of employment
Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862) – a bus driver was instructed not to race
with or obstruct the buses of rival companies – he disobeyed and caused accident –
employers were still liable because it was simply an improper method of performing duty
Rose v Plenty (1976) – milkman employed a 13y.o. despite employer´s express
prohibitions – employers were still held liable because the milkman was acting for the
master´s purposes, business and benefit
Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd (1965) – employer was held vicariously liable for the theft
(criminal act) because the employee´s act constituted an unlawful mode of his job
Poland v Parr & Sons (1927) – company was held liable for an employee who injured a
boy who was trying to steal sugar of his firm´s lorry
Warren v Henlys Ltd (1948) – a garage attendant, as an act of personal vengeance,
assaulted a customer of the garage – employers were not liable (assault was personal and
outside the scope of employment)
Lloyd v Grace (1912) – agent acted with dishonest purpose for his own ends, his act was
of the class of acts which fall within the ordinary business of solicitors
Mattis v Pollock (2003) – bouncer stabbed C who was visiting D´s club, despite the act
being of personal revenge, Ds were held liable since they should have known about his
aggressive behaviour
Maga v Birmingham Roman Catholic Archdiocese Trustees (2010) – priest was guilty of
sexual abuse and the Archdiocese was held vicariously liable for him
Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd (1957) – HOL held that employees are
obliged by their contract of employment to indemnify their employer against any liability
which results from the employee´s responsibility for damage caused

Vicarious Liability Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vicarious Liability Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vicarious Liability Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

You might also like