QUESTION ONE
a) Paula was employed as a delivery driver for Gourmet Market Ltd. Just
to pass the time, Paula’s unemployed sister Freya would often join Paula
on the delivery run, just to keep her company. Gourmet Market Ltd had a
strict policy that no passengers were allowed in their vehicles. One
morning, Paula became distracted and crashed into a lamppost, causing
Freya to break her leg.
b) Back in the Gourmet Market Ltd warehouse, a water pipe had burst,
making the floor extremely slippery. Gourmet Market Ltd spread sawdust
across the floor. However, there was not enough to cover the whole floor.
Kate, a warehouse employee, slipped on the slippery floor, suffering from
a fractured hip.
c) A couple of years ago, Phil, Gourmet Market Ltd’s handyman, had
painted the inside of the staff room. Gourmet Market Ltd had provided him
with a tin of Redhill Paint, which had been recalled as the paint was found
to contain cancer-causing solvents. Gourmet Market Ltd were aware of
the product recall notice, but ignored it. Phil already had severe kidney
problems and exposure to the toxins in the paint triggered kidney failure,
leaving him unable to work again.
Advise Gourmet Market Ltd
QUESTION ONE
Introduction
, To see whether Gourmet Market is liable for its employees, the following
structure will be followed in the three cases: a summary of the facts,
establishing a relationship followed by a duty of care, a possible breach of that
duty, causation and remoteness. Then liability will be identified and if at all
relevant, possible defences and remedies.
Freya
Freya is the sister of a Gourmet Market employee who went against the policy
prohibiting passengers in their delivery vehicles and will only be able to claim
damages from Gourmet if she can establish that they were vicariously liable for
Kate’s negligence. The first step is to establish a duty of care. As per
Donoghue1 and Caparo,2 reasonable foresight of harm must be expected, there
must sufficient proximity and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a
duty. Control of a motor-vehicle creates a duty of care owed to those who might,
reasonably and foreseeably, be affected the by negligent exercise of that
control. Kate was driving so she would ordinarily be liable for Freya’s injuries.
However, we are told that she was acting as an employee, which means that
there is no need to rely on the tests of control, 3 integration,4 or economic reality
to define her status.5 It must now be established if she was acting in the course
1 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
2 Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2
3 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Ltd v Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd
[1946] 2 All ER 345 HL
4 Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison Ltd v MacDonald & Evans [1952] 1 TLR 101
5 Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2018] UKSC 29
a) Paula was employed as a delivery driver for Gourmet Market Ltd. Just
to pass the time, Paula’s unemployed sister Freya would often join Paula
on the delivery run, just to keep her company. Gourmet Market Ltd had a
strict policy that no passengers were allowed in their vehicles. One
morning, Paula became distracted and crashed into a lamppost, causing
Freya to break her leg.
b) Back in the Gourmet Market Ltd warehouse, a water pipe had burst,
making the floor extremely slippery. Gourmet Market Ltd spread sawdust
across the floor. However, there was not enough to cover the whole floor.
Kate, a warehouse employee, slipped on the slippery floor, suffering from
a fractured hip.
c) A couple of years ago, Phil, Gourmet Market Ltd’s handyman, had
painted the inside of the staff room. Gourmet Market Ltd had provided him
with a tin of Redhill Paint, which had been recalled as the paint was found
to contain cancer-causing solvents. Gourmet Market Ltd were aware of
the product recall notice, but ignored it. Phil already had severe kidney
problems and exposure to the toxins in the paint triggered kidney failure,
leaving him unable to work again.
Advise Gourmet Market Ltd
QUESTION ONE
Introduction
, To see whether Gourmet Market is liable for its employees, the following
structure will be followed in the three cases: a summary of the facts,
establishing a relationship followed by a duty of care, a possible breach of that
duty, causation and remoteness. Then liability will be identified and if at all
relevant, possible defences and remedies.
Freya
Freya is the sister of a Gourmet Market employee who went against the policy
prohibiting passengers in their delivery vehicles and will only be able to claim
damages from Gourmet if she can establish that they were vicariously liable for
Kate’s negligence. The first step is to establish a duty of care. As per
Donoghue1 and Caparo,2 reasonable foresight of harm must be expected, there
must sufficient proximity and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a
duty. Control of a motor-vehicle creates a duty of care owed to those who might,
reasonably and foreseeably, be affected the by negligent exercise of that
control. Kate was driving so she would ordinarily be liable for Freya’s injuries.
However, we are told that she was acting as an employee, which means that
there is no need to rely on the tests of control, 3 integration,4 or economic reality
to define her status.5 It must now be established if she was acting in the course
1 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
2 Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2
3 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Ltd v Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd
[1946] 2 All ER 345 HL
4 Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison Ltd v MacDonald & Evans [1952] 1 TLR 101
5 Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2018] UKSC 29
