The event occurred between 1979 and 1982. It was claimed that the appellats were sexually abused by Mr Grain, the warden at Axelhome House at Hesley Hall Boarding School. Damages were claimed for the personal injuries attained whilst the claimants were students at Hesley Hall, which ran Axelhome House. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s actions, though the House of Lords reversed the Appeal Court’s decision stating that the defendant was vicariously liable in respect of the torts committed by Mr Grain.
Facts
In 1990, Mr Grain he was charged by the Crown Court for sexual abuse taking the form of mutual masturbation, oral sex and buggery and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. It was also established that the sexual assault was a …show more content…
He states that if the Salmond test is mechanically applied, it`s likely that there would be no vicarious liability; he uses this example 'the result at first glance will be that the bank is not liable, where a bank employee defrauds a customer by giving him only half the foreign exchange which he paid for, the employee pocketing the difference.'
Lord Steyn talks about the 'correctness of Trotman v North Yorkshire County Council', MS was a servant at a school for handicapped children, the plaintiff was indecently assaulted by MS whilst he carried out his supervisory role as schoolmaster and responsible for the plaintiff`s care. This case is very similar to Lister v Hesley Ltd. This was the case that formed the base for the decision taken in the Court of Appeal, but the House of Lords is not bound by decisions of the Court of appeal.
Lord Steyn in this case overrules the Trotman case because he believes is it wrong to apply the same principle in Lister v Hesley Ltd; 'The connection between the employment and the torts was very close. I would overrule Trotman v North Yorkshire County …show more content…
This observation is very important and is one of the factors that encouraged Lord Clyde to allow the vicarious liability. Lord Clyde believes that the work involved created a sufficient connection between the acts of abuse which he committed and the work which he had been employed to do. He also agrees that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant is vicariously liable. Lord Hutton briefly agrees with the reasoning of Lord Steyn and he also allows the
Facts
In 1990, Mr Grain he was charged by the Crown Court for sexual abuse taking the form of mutual masturbation, oral sex and buggery and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. It was also established that the sexual assault was a …show more content…
He states that if the Salmond test is mechanically applied, it`s likely that there would be no vicarious liability; he uses this example 'the result at first glance will be that the bank is not liable, where a bank employee defrauds a customer by giving him only half the foreign exchange which he paid for, the employee pocketing the difference.'
Lord Steyn talks about the 'correctness of Trotman v North Yorkshire County Council', MS was a servant at a school for handicapped children, the plaintiff was indecently assaulted by MS whilst he carried out his supervisory role as schoolmaster and responsible for the plaintiff`s care. This case is very similar to Lister v Hesley Ltd. This was the case that formed the base for the decision taken in the Court of Appeal, but the House of Lords is not bound by decisions of the Court of appeal.
Lord Steyn in this case overrules the Trotman case because he believes is it wrong to apply the same principle in Lister v Hesley Ltd; 'The connection between the employment and the torts was very close. I would overrule Trotman v North Yorkshire County …show more content…
This observation is very important and is one of the factors that encouraged Lord Clyde to allow the vicarious liability. Lord Clyde believes that the work involved created a sufficient connection between the acts of abuse which he committed and the work which he had been employed to do. He also agrees that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant is vicariously liable. Lord Hutton briefly agrees with the reasoning of Lord Steyn and he also allows the