Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vicarious Liability 2
Vicarious Liability 2
(Vicarious Liability)
As a matter of justice one who commits torts is a wrong doer and he/she
should be held responsible for that wrong himself/herself.”But there are
certain cases and circumstances where one person is held responsible for the
wrong committed by others. This rule is known as VICARIOUS LIBILITY.A
person can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of another. The basic
rule of vicarious liability is that an employer is vicariously liable for the
negligence of an employee provided the employee was acting in the course of
employment.
Example: Mr. “A” is a personal driver of Mr. “B” ,while doing his duty, “A” got
an accident on road by his own negligence and hit the brand new Toyota
Corolla of Mr. “C”. Mr. “B” would be vicariously liable to Mr. “ C” regardless of
Mr. “B” fault. Mr. “C” can file a suit for damages in the Court of Law against B.
Underlying Principles of Vicarious Liability
Following are the tests which the judges keep in their mind while deciding the
cases of vicarious Liabilities.
Test 1: There must be a control test or close connection test when considering an
employer’s vicarious Liability to an employee.
Test 2:The wrong Act done must be done under the course of employment/To
see how close the wrongful act is connected within the scope of employment.
Test 3: Authorized Wrongful Act.e.g Abement cases.
Test 4: The act authorized by the employer was done in a wrongful way by the
employee…..E.g. the duty to take a reasonable care…..by the employee towards
third person and a legal injury or damage has been done to the third party.E.g
Frolic of their own by ignoring the instructions of the employer.
Test 5: Intentional torts committed by the employer…frolic of their own….would
the employer be liable vicariously. Assault and battery cases,sex abuses cases.
Here we will see the close-connection test…(Lister vs Hesley hall 2002/Lister
close-connection test)
Lister vs Hesley hall limited 2002
Facts
A warden was employed at an annex of a boarding school for boys and
responsible for the day-to-day running of the school, discipline of the
boys, organization of their daily activities, as well as supervision and
care of the boys after school hours.The warden had sexually abused a
number of the boys, yet unknown to his employers. The sexual abuse
took numerous forms and was usually administered in the context of
the warden’s control and discipline at the boarding school.
Issues
The question arose as to whether the employers of the warden may be
held vicariously liable for their employee’s intentional sexual abuse of
school boys placed under his care..?
Lister Close Connection Test
Mr Khan was an employee of Morrison Supermarkets Ltd Company, working in the kiosk
serving customers at a Morrisons petrol station on its premises, in Birmingham. The
claimant, Mr Mohamud, was of Somali origin and was a customer who had entered the
petrol station to ask if he could print some documents from a USB stick.
Mr Khan responded using abusive language, stating that Mr Mohamud could not print the
files at the petrol station. When Mr Mohamud objected to Mr Khan’s use of abusive
language, Mr Khan told him to leave the premises, using threatening and abusive
language again. Mr Khan then followed Mr Mohamud out to his car, opened the
passenger door and proceeded to assault Mr Mohamud, punching him and kicking him to
the ground.
Mr Mohamud brought a claim for personal injury against Morrisons and the question
arose as to whether or not the Company could be held vicariously liable for Mr Khan’s
unprovoked and violent attack.