Chelsea Nkansah UNIT 7
When someone is held liable for a tort committed by someone else, this is known as
vicarious responsibility. This was deemed unjust since an innocent individual would
be held responsible for someone else's conduct because they had either neglected
to do something or had done something wrong. The explanation would be that the
tort plaintiff is entitled to damages for the harm or accident afflicted; the employer
may have some control over employee activities in the workplace, or the employee
followed instructions that led to the tort stating “only the employer should bear the
cost of the employee's actions; and the employer may have some control over
employee activities in the workplace”. Only the employer shall bear the expense of
the employee's activities if the employee followed orders that originated in the tort.
Employers are responsible for hiring, firing, and disciplining their employees; yet, the
employer may very well have made an error in hiring. Employers can use an internal
disciplinary system to guarantee that bad behaviour is not repeated. Employers are
responsible for employees so they must make sure they are properly trained in order
to do their jobs safely. Employers, on the other hand, may be at blame for failing to
provide proper training. The two requirements are, The tort must be committed by an
employee, not an independent or self-employed worker and lastly the tort must have
been committed during the employee's employment.
Patrick placed an urgent order for wine with Steve. Steve told Theo, his van driver, to
take the wine to Patrick’s house and to ‘drive directly’ there. On the way there, Theo
made a detour to visit a friend. Theo answered his mobile phone when he was
speeding round a bend on a narrow road. He lost control of his van and crashed into
Viggo’s shop. The shop was severely damaged and had to close for repairs. This
meant that Viggo lost business profits worth £2000.
To find out if the defendant is an employee, we must first establish the control test.
The feature of this test includes the power to employ, right to control method of
working, right to dismiss/suspend and payment of wages. In the case Mersey Docks
v Coggins & Griffiths, Harbour Authority provided crane drivers to a stevedores
company, with the contract stipulating that the crane drivers are employees to
stevedores company, although the crane drivers were paid and liable to be
dismissed by Harbour Authority. One of the crane drivers injured the claimant by
negligently driving the crane. The claimant sued both Harbour authority and
, Chelsea Nkansah UNIT 7
Stevedore Company, however it was held that Harbour Authority remained the
employer of the crane driver and was vicariously liable 1.
To establish whether Theo is an employee we first apply the control test (Mersey
Docks V Coggins & Griffiths). If Steve has control over the work done by Theo as
well as controlling hours worked and powers of dismissal, Theo is more likely to be
an employee.
Next, we have the economic reality test with the case Ready Mixed Concrete The
relevant factors may include ownership of any tools/equipment used at work, the
method of payment- self-employed are likely to get paid for the whole job whereas
employees get regular payments (salary). If tax, NI, and pension contributions are
deducted from wages usually the employee submits self-assessments and pays tax
annually, the job description and any independence and flexibility. In the case Ready
Mixed Concrete, 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, yet with a
requirement that the vehicle be painted in company colours. He was to drive the
vehicle himself but under compliance with certain company’s rules including, for
example, the manner of vehicle repairs and payments. On the facts, the Court held
that the driver had sufficient freedom in the performance of his contractual
obligations as he was free to decide the vehicle, his own labour, fuel, and other
requirements in the performance of the task. In lieu of these freedoms, he was an
independent contractor and not an employee of the company 2.
In this case we apply the economic reality or multiple test (Ready Mixed Concrete)
where various factors are considered. If Theo receives a regular salary where Steve
is responsible for tax and national insurance payments, it is more likely that Theo is
an employee. If however, Theo is paid in a lump sum and responsible for his own tax
and national insurance payments, providing his own tools, it is more likely Theo is an
independent contractor and therefore not an employee.
Next we have the integration or organisation test which is found under the Stevenson
Jordan & Harrison v Macdonald & Evans in this case an engineer wrote a book that
1
https://lawprof.co/tort/vicarious-liability-cases/mersey-docks-and-harbour-board-v-coggins-1947-ac-1/
2
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/ready-mixed-concrete-v-minister-of-pensions.php
When someone is held liable for a tort committed by someone else, this is known as
vicarious responsibility. This was deemed unjust since an innocent individual would
be held responsible for someone else's conduct because they had either neglected
to do something or had done something wrong. The explanation would be that the
tort plaintiff is entitled to damages for the harm or accident afflicted; the employer
may have some control over employee activities in the workplace, or the employee
followed instructions that led to the tort stating “only the employer should bear the
cost of the employee's actions; and the employer may have some control over
employee activities in the workplace”. Only the employer shall bear the expense of
the employee's activities if the employee followed orders that originated in the tort.
Employers are responsible for hiring, firing, and disciplining their employees; yet, the
employer may very well have made an error in hiring. Employers can use an internal
disciplinary system to guarantee that bad behaviour is not repeated. Employers are
responsible for employees so they must make sure they are properly trained in order
to do their jobs safely. Employers, on the other hand, may be at blame for failing to
provide proper training. The two requirements are, The tort must be committed by an
employee, not an independent or self-employed worker and lastly the tort must have
been committed during the employee's employment.
Patrick placed an urgent order for wine with Steve. Steve told Theo, his van driver, to
take the wine to Patrick’s house and to ‘drive directly’ there. On the way there, Theo
made a detour to visit a friend. Theo answered his mobile phone when he was
speeding round a bend on a narrow road. He lost control of his van and crashed into
Viggo’s shop. The shop was severely damaged and had to close for repairs. This
meant that Viggo lost business profits worth £2000.
To find out if the defendant is an employee, we must first establish the control test.
The feature of this test includes the power to employ, right to control method of
working, right to dismiss/suspend and payment of wages. In the case Mersey Docks
v Coggins & Griffiths, Harbour Authority provided crane drivers to a stevedores
company, with the contract stipulating that the crane drivers are employees to
stevedores company, although the crane drivers were paid and liable to be
dismissed by Harbour Authority. One of the crane drivers injured the claimant by
negligently driving the crane. The claimant sued both Harbour authority and
, Chelsea Nkansah UNIT 7
Stevedore Company, however it was held that Harbour Authority remained the
employer of the crane driver and was vicariously liable 1.
To establish whether Theo is an employee we first apply the control test (Mersey
Docks V Coggins & Griffiths). If Steve has control over the work done by Theo as
well as controlling hours worked and powers of dismissal, Theo is more likely to be
an employee.
Next, we have the economic reality test with the case Ready Mixed Concrete The
relevant factors may include ownership of any tools/equipment used at work, the
method of payment- self-employed are likely to get paid for the whole job whereas
employees get regular payments (salary). If tax, NI, and pension contributions are
deducted from wages usually the employee submits self-assessments and pays tax
annually, the job description and any independence and flexibility. In the case Ready
Mixed Concrete, 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, yet with a
requirement that the vehicle be painted in company colours. He was to drive the
vehicle himself but under compliance with certain company’s rules including, for
example, the manner of vehicle repairs and payments. On the facts, the Court held
that the driver had sufficient freedom in the performance of his contractual
obligations as he was free to decide the vehicle, his own labour, fuel, and other
requirements in the performance of the task. In lieu of these freedoms, he was an
independent contractor and not an employee of the company 2.
In this case we apply the economic reality or multiple test (Ready Mixed Concrete)
where various factors are considered. If Theo receives a regular salary where Steve
is responsible for tax and national insurance payments, it is more likely that Theo is
an employee. If however, Theo is paid in a lump sum and responsible for his own tax
and national insurance payments, providing his own tools, it is more likely Theo is an
independent contractor and therefore not an employee.
Next we have the integration or organisation test which is found under the Stevenson
Jordan & Harrison v Macdonald & Evans in this case an engineer wrote a book that
1
https://lawprof.co/tort/vicarious-liability-cases/mersey-docks-and-harbour-board-v-coggins-1947-ac-1/
2
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/ready-mixed-concrete-v-minister-of-pensions.php
