Vicarious Liability

Front 1

Moynihan v Moynihan

Back 1

The wrongdoer (the aunt) was de facto in the service of her mother (the grandmother) and therefore the defendant had the necessary control over the wrongdoer.

Front 2

Fallon v Gannon

Back 2

Solicitor is not vicariously liable for the negligence of a barrister that he instructed on behalf of a client

Front 3

O'Keefe v Hickey

Back 3

State, through the Minister of Education, was not VL for the abuse of a pupil by a teacher who was appointed by the board of management. Element of control was missing.

Front 4

To find an employer liable, plaintiff will have to prove...

Back 4

1) that an employment relationship exists

2) that there is sufficient connection between the wrong and the job of the employee

Front 5

Lynch v Palgrave Murphy Ltd [1964]

Back 5

Forklift driver hired from his employer company by the defendant company.

Crucial factor in determining if the defendant company was vicariously liable for the wrongdoer's negligence was the element of control that the company exercised over the wrongdoer.

Front 6

The Catholic Child Welfare Society & Ors v Various Claiments & Ors

Back 6

Religious order found jointly liable with school managers for abuse committed by teacher-brothers. Was there a relationship akin to an employment relationship.

Front 7

Walshe v Bailieboro Co-op Agricultural and Dairy Society and Gargan

Back 7

Hours of work were fixed by the first defendant and there was not much discretion left to the operator. This meant there was sufficient control.

Front 8

Phelan v Coillte Teo

Back 8

Wrongdoer (welder) was paid an hourly rate and had travel expenses covered. Was considered a contractor and he provided his own equipment and tools. Court was of the opinion defendant was an employer because the control that was exercisable over the wrongdoer was the same as the control that would be exercised over an employee of the same skill.

Front 9

Carroll v An Post National Lottery Co

Back 9

Lotto agents are not employees of the National Lottery as they are not subject to the National Lottery's control or discretion.

Front 10

Test for connection between the job of the employee and the tort committed.

Back 10

if it is either (a) the wrongful act authorised by the master, or (b) a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master.

was he doing his job even if he was doing it badly

Front 11

Williams v Morrisey

Back 11

Wrongdoer threw a stone to direct the cattle. Stone hit the plaintiff and the court held that while this was not the correct way to do the job it was still done as a manner of getting the cattle from A to B.

Front 12

Boyle v Ferguson

Back 12

Car accident caused by a car salesman outside of work hours. The job encompassed taking cars out and driving them in the hope of advertising them and selling them. Held that he was acting in the course of his employment.

Front 13

O'Connell v Bateman

Back 13

No liability when the employee negligently caused a car accident in the employer's lorry while travelling for non work purposes.
Was visiting his parents at the time, not within the scope of his employment.

Front 14

Farry v GN Rly Co

Back 14

Employer held liable for false imprisonment after dispute regarding a ticket. Wrongdoer was held to be acting within his power, bona fide in the interests of the company and not for a purpose of his own.

Front 15

Reilly v Ryan

Back 15

Employer was not found liable when a bar manager used a customer as a human shield as this was not what was expected of a manager. Employer maintained that they were under attack and customer safety is always paramount.

Front 16

Bazley v Curry

Back 16

Sexual abuse in a residential care facility for troubled children.
Held liable as it was sufficiently related to conduct authorised by the employer. Enterprise materially increased the risk of this happening

Front 17

Jacobi v Griffiths

Back 17

Sexual assaults here mainly took place at the employee's home. The employers enterprise was not such as to give rise to relations of power and intimacy and therefore there was no material enhancement in the risk and no close connection between the wrongdoing and the employment.

Front 18

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd.

Back 18

The HoL held that the sexual abuse by a warden in a residential school was sufficiently connected with the employment of work in a boarding school as to make it fair and just to hold the school liable.

Front 19

O'Keefe v Hickey

Front 20

Reilly v Devereux

Back 20

Court did not find that the Minster for Defense was liable for sexual abuse committed by a Sergeant Major on a subordinate. Courts found the relationship in the army was not similar to that of an employee of a school in close contact with children.