LEGAL DEVICE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY – strict liability on D Employees must have committed a tort Expansion of liability beyond the employer - employee
for Tortfeasor fault. Vicarious liability is a legal principle. It Imperial Chemical Industries v Shatwell relationship
makes A liable to B for the tort committed by C. A is made HOL held that there can only be vicarious liability for torts The recent expansion of the principle of vicarious liability to
liable as has a relationship with B which warrants an relationships beyond the traditional contract of
imposition of such responsibility. One such relationship is Since Lister v Heasley Hall employment. Cases have focused on the extent to which the
employer-employee: B is the employee of A. It is a form of intentional wrongful/criminal conducts have attracted worker is:
strict liability. The employer is not personally at fault and his vicarious liability. (a) ‘managed’ or ‘accountable’ to the
liability is not dependent on such fault. employer;
Lister – sexual assault (b) the centrality of their activates to the
Indemnity Mattis v Pollock (t/a Flamingos Nightclub) – battery enterprise of the employer; and (How impt
Indemnity will be pursued in exception cases of wilful Brink’s Global Services Inc v Igrox Ltd - theft the employee in business?)
misconduct or collusion between the employer and Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust – (c) the integration of their activities to the
employee. Note: Civil Liability (Contributory) Act 1978. harassment/breach of statutory duty in employment employer’s business. (What extend
Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage context employee involved/fuse into business as
Employer was held to be entitled to reimbursement from the [Note: Assault, battery, theft (tort of conversion) and whole?)
neg employee for damage paid out to the injured party. harassment are all torts as well as crimes]
C(child)-Priest-Diocesan
Thus today, for wrongful act negligence, then legal element JGE v The Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic
Rationale for tort of neg must be established. Where for wrongful act Diocesan Trust
1. Employers are in control of what their employees is criminal in nature, then criminal law element must C, a child at a children’s home run by the D, was physically
do, so it is fair for them to take responsibility for established. and sexually abused by a perish priest at the diocesan. Held
the acts of their employees. D’s were held vicariously liable for the abuse by the perish
2. Employers benefit form the work done by their Employer-employee relationship priest although there was no traditional employer-
employees and so they ought to be responsible for 1. There must exist a contract of service (employee) employee relationship between the priest and the diocesan.
any damages arising from that work. [c/f a contract for services (independent The courts held the time has come emphatically to announce
3. The employer has a ‘deeper pocket’ with many contract).] that the law of vicarious liability has moved beyond the
insuring precisely for such responsibility. To determine whether there exist a such a contract confines of a contract of service. The test that I have set …
4. Employers are in a unique position to internalise courts have developed a number of test:- ***is whether the relationship . . [in question] . . is so close
cost and this helps spread the risk through society. A. Control test in character to one of employer and employee that it is just
5. Liability encourages employees to be careful in the B. Term of Contract test and fair to hold the employer vicariously liable.’ (Akin to
recruitment, training and supervision of their C. Economic Reality test (preferred) Employer-Employee r/ship)
employees. Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions,
McKenna J C(student)-Teaching Brothers-School Institution
3 conditions must be satisfied: Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society & oths
Elements to prove in order to VL on employer. Various
(a) The employee agrees to provide his work and skill in The case involved a large number of Cs suing for the sexual
Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society
return of a wage or other remuneration and physical abuse they had endured at the hands of staff
1. The tortfeasor must have committed a tort.
(b) The employee expressly or impliedly to be directed as to at a school managed by the D. Held It was fair and just and
2. An employer – employee relationship between the
the mode of performance to such a degree as to make reasonable for the D to be made liable. The law of vicarious
defendant and the tortfeasor.
the other his employer liability has been extended. Unincorporated associations
3. The tort must have committed within the course of
(c) The other provision of the contract are inconsistent with might now be liable, such liability extended beyond the
employment. Today after CCWS and Cox, affirmed
its being a contract of services strict extent of the employee’s duties, and could include
in Armes, the term used is close connection.
illegal activity, and such liability can be shared. “The policy
D. Business Integration test objective underlying vicarious liability is to ensure, insofar as
E. Policy Based approach (today) it is fair, just and reasonable, that liability for tortious wrong
is borne by a D with the means to compensate the victim.”L.
for Tortfeasor fault. Vicarious liability is a legal principle. It Imperial Chemical Industries v Shatwell relationship
makes A liable to B for the tort committed by C. A is made HOL held that there can only be vicarious liability for torts The recent expansion of the principle of vicarious liability to
liable as has a relationship with B which warrants an relationships beyond the traditional contract of
imposition of such responsibility. One such relationship is Since Lister v Heasley Hall employment. Cases have focused on the extent to which the
employer-employee: B is the employee of A. It is a form of intentional wrongful/criminal conducts have attracted worker is:
strict liability. The employer is not personally at fault and his vicarious liability. (a) ‘managed’ or ‘accountable’ to the
liability is not dependent on such fault. employer;
Lister – sexual assault (b) the centrality of their activates to the
Indemnity Mattis v Pollock (t/a Flamingos Nightclub) – battery enterprise of the employer; and (How impt
Indemnity will be pursued in exception cases of wilful Brink’s Global Services Inc v Igrox Ltd - theft the employee in business?)
misconduct or collusion between the employer and Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust – (c) the integration of their activities to the
employee. Note: Civil Liability (Contributory) Act 1978. harassment/breach of statutory duty in employment employer’s business. (What extend
Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage context employee involved/fuse into business as
Employer was held to be entitled to reimbursement from the [Note: Assault, battery, theft (tort of conversion) and whole?)
neg employee for damage paid out to the injured party. harassment are all torts as well as crimes]
C(child)-Priest-Diocesan
Thus today, for wrongful act negligence, then legal element JGE v The Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic
Rationale for tort of neg must be established. Where for wrongful act Diocesan Trust
1. Employers are in control of what their employees is criminal in nature, then criminal law element must C, a child at a children’s home run by the D, was physically
do, so it is fair for them to take responsibility for established. and sexually abused by a perish priest at the diocesan. Held
the acts of their employees. D’s were held vicariously liable for the abuse by the perish
2. Employers benefit form the work done by their Employer-employee relationship priest although there was no traditional employer-
employees and so they ought to be responsible for 1. There must exist a contract of service (employee) employee relationship between the priest and the diocesan.
any damages arising from that work. [c/f a contract for services (independent The courts held the time has come emphatically to announce
3. The employer has a ‘deeper pocket’ with many contract).] that the law of vicarious liability has moved beyond the
insuring precisely for such responsibility. To determine whether there exist a such a contract confines of a contract of service. The test that I have set …
4. Employers are in a unique position to internalise courts have developed a number of test:- ***is whether the relationship . . [in question] . . is so close
cost and this helps spread the risk through society. A. Control test in character to one of employer and employee that it is just
5. Liability encourages employees to be careful in the B. Term of Contract test and fair to hold the employer vicariously liable.’ (Akin to
recruitment, training and supervision of their C. Economic Reality test (preferred) Employer-Employee r/ship)
employees. Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions,
McKenna J C(student)-Teaching Brothers-School Institution
3 conditions must be satisfied: Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society & oths
Elements to prove in order to VL on employer. Various
(a) The employee agrees to provide his work and skill in The case involved a large number of Cs suing for the sexual
Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society
return of a wage or other remuneration and physical abuse they had endured at the hands of staff
1. The tortfeasor must have committed a tort.
(b) The employee expressly or impliedly to be directed as to at a school managed by the D. Held It was fair and just and
2. An employer – employee relationship between the
the mode of performance to such a degree as to make reasonable for the D to be made liable. The law of vicarious
defendant and the tortfeasor.
the other his employer liability has been extended. Unincorporated associations
3. The tort must have committed within the course of
(c) The other provision of the contract are inconsistent with might now be liable, such liability extended beyond the
employment. Today after CCWS and Cox, affirmed
its being a contract of services strict extent of the employee’s duties, and could include
in Armes, the term used is close connection.
illegal activity, and such liability can be shared. “The policy
D. Business Integration test objective underlying vicarious liability is to ensure, insofar as
E. Policy Based approach (today) it is fair, just and reasonable, that liability for tortious wrong
is borne by a D with the means to compensate the victim.”L.
