This essay aims to briefly outline the reasoning as to why employers are responsible for their employees’ actions, as well as exploring numerous ideas that are either in favour or against vicarious liability. Firstly vicarious liability is responsibility “for the tort of others and it arises because there is a special relationship between the parties.“ This means that the individual who undertakes the act deemed as tort is still responsible but if the act is deemed as vicarious liability then so is another person. Vicarious liability is frequently used in the context of employment situations, and has a strict set of components that have to be met in order for an employer to be vicariously liable for a person; which will be examined throughout
…show more content…
Khan’s supervisor arrived on the scene and instructed him to stop, however this made no difference. The judge ruled that in this case Morrison’s could not be vicariously liable because not only did the supervisor instruct Mr Khan to stop but by using the “close connection” test. This test compares the employees’ duties to those of the tortious act in order to establish whether a case qualifies as vicarious liability. It was decided that Khan was not acting at the “arm” of his employer as his actions were not those of his job …show more content…
However to a certain degree I can understand how it can seem somewhat ‘unjust’ for the employer to be vicariously liable for another individual’s actions. Although the employer has certain control over an employee they are not physically in control of their body. Saying this I do agree that holding employers vicarious liable for employees is a positive thing mainly because while in the workplace they are responsible for said employee, they should equipt them with adequate training and ensure to the best of their ability that company procedures are being carried out at all times to eliminate the risk of any case of vicarious liability being brought against them. I would also recommend to employers taking extra care in the employment process to ensure they are hiring the right candidate for the position will thorectically lessen their chances for a case of vicarious liability against
Khan’s supervisor arrived on the scene and instructed him to stop, however this made no difference. The judge ruled that in this case Morrison’s could not be vicariously liable because not only did the supervisor instruct Mr Khan to stop but by using the “close connection” test. This test compares the employees’ duties to those of the tortious act in order to establish whether a case qualifies as vicarious liability. It was decided that Khan was not acting at the “arm” of his employer as his actions were not those of his job …show more content…
However to a certain degree I can understand how it can seem somewhat ‘unjust’ for the employer to be vicariously liable for another individual’s actions. Although the employer has certain control over an employee they are not physically in control of their body. Saying this I do agree that holding employers vicarious liable for employees is a positive thing mainly because while in the workplace they are responsible for said employee, they should equipt them with adequate training and ensure to the best of their ability that company procedures are being carried out at all times to eliminate the risk of any case of vicarious liability being brought against them. I would also recommend to employers taking extra care in the employment process to ensure they are hiring the right candidate for the position will thorectically lessen their chances for a case of vicarious liability against