Scribd
Upload
44 views

Tort Coursework

Vicarious liability holds an employer legally responsible for wrongs committed by an employee. An employer is more likely to be sued than the employee because employers are more likely to have insurance. An employer can be vicariously liable if the employee's actions occurred in the course of employment, such as in a work-related car accident. However, if an accident occurs before or after work and was a personal "frolic", the employer would not be liable. The case of Lister v Hesley Hall established the "close connection test", where vicarious liability can still apply if there was a close connection between the employment and tort, even if intentional, such as a risk of abuse the employer should have prevented.

Uploaded by

Ayesha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
44 views

Tort Coursework

Vicarious liability holds an employer legally responsible for wrongs committed by an employee. An employer is more likely to be sued than the employee because employers are more likely to have insurance. An employer can be vicariously liable if the employee's actions occurred in the course of employment, such as in a work-related car accident. However, if an accident occurs before or after work and was a personal "frolic", the employer would not be liable. The case of Lister v Hesley Hall established the "close connection test", where vicarious liability can still apply if there was a close connection between the employment and tort, even if intentional, such as a risk of abuse the employer should have prevented.

Uploaded by

Ayesha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1.

Explain what vicarious liability is (C2, CLO1) (3m)


In a nutshell, vicarious liability is when someone is held legally responsible for wrongs done
by someone else, usually an employer and an employee. Vicarious liability is a joint liability
in that the person who committed the tort and their employer can be sued. In practice,
however, the employer is more likely to be sued because they are more likely to have
insurance. For example, if an employee negligently injures a colleague, the employer may
be vicariously liable for the employee’s actions. They may also be personally liable for
negligence for failing to provide adequate supervision.

2. Justify the need for holding an employer liable for the employee’s negligence (C2, CLO1)
(5m)
An employer is more likely to be liable for the employee’s negligence because they are more
likely to be financially comfortable compensating the victim. Apart from that, employers
benefit from the employee’s work, so they must take responsibility for any harm caused.
When an employer is vicariously liable, it induces the employer to promote higher standards
of behaviour or safety. An employee is under the employer's control, which may encourage
the employer to keep up with good practices and be careful when hiring people. Lastly, it is a
doctrine that is seen as helping reduce workplace incidents.

3. Explain whether the employer would be liable in the following circumstances: (C2, CLO1)
(6m)

I. Roger is employed by ‘Eazi-build’, a DIY warehouse. While driving to work one morning,
his negligence causes a car crash in which Parminder is injured and her car is damaged
beyond repair.
II. Simon is a traveling salesman for ‘Eazi-build’ who works from home, while driving to his
first call, he negligently collides with a car driven by Oona, injuring her and damaging her
car.
III. Taru is a delivery driver for ‘Eazi-build’. One day on completing his last morning delivery,
instead of returning to work as he should, he goes to a pub for a few beers. On driving back
to work he negligently runs over a pedestrian, Nellie, killing her.

I. The employer would not be liable. The car crash had occurred before his course of
employment. Therefore, the damage negligently caused by Roger was a frolic of his
own.
II. The employer would be liable. Since Simon is a “travelling salesman”, his home is his
office/workplace and his job requires him to travel to meet with his clients. This would
indicate that he was in the course of employment and not in a frolic of his own.
III. The employer would be liable. Taru was still in the course of employment when he
negligently ran over Nellie. Support can be gained from the fact that he didn’t clock
out after completing his last morning delivery because he was supposed to return to
work.

4. Is an employer liable for acts done in protection of his property and cite a case law that
supports your argument. (C2, CLO1) (3m)
Yes, the employer is liable if an employee commits a tort to protect the employer's property.
In Poland v. Parr, a contractor's employee followed his employer's sugar-bagged wagon.
The employee thought a boy with a hand on a bag was stealing sugar and assaulted him.
The boy fell, and the waggon ran over his foot, losing his leg. The employee assumed the
child stole sugar, but he did not. The employer was held vicariously liable as an employee
had implied authority, in an emergency, to protect his employer’s property.

5. Explain the importance of the case of Lister v Hesley Hall (2001) (C2, CLO1) (3m)
The Close Connection test emerged in the case of Lister v. Hesley Hall (2001). In summary,
the claimants, in this case, were boys at a school for children with emotional difficulties who
the warden, an employee of the defendants, had sexually assaulted. They claimed that the
defendants were vicariously liable. However, the House of Lords departed from the Salmond
test approach, as the basic Salmond test isn't suitable in cases where the wrongdoing was
intentional rather than careless. The House of Lords held that the appropriate test was
whether there was a sufficient connection between the employment and the torts committed
by the employee. The court agreed that there was a risk of abuse that the employer should
have taken steps to prevent. Vicarious liability was appropriate in the circumstances.

You might also like