Vicarious Liability

Front 1

Airflix Footwear v Cope

Back 1

FACTS: A woman worked at home manufacturing parts of shoes for the company. The company argued she was not an employee.

PRINCIPLE: One particular focus was on whether the company paid her income tax through PAYE - something which made it more likely that she was their employee.

Front 2

Argent v Minister of Social Security

Back 2

FACTS: A teacher was almost entirely free from the control of the scholl and did not teach from a syllabus. He was not an employee.

PRINCIPLE: The amount of control exerted and the ability to restrict the individual from taking other work is a significant indicator of whether there is an employment relationship.

Front 3

Bayley v London General Omnibus

Back 3

FACTS: A man was injured being dragged off a train by a railway porter.

PRINCIPLE: The actions were within the course of his employment as he was carrying out his duties as an employee, albeit in an unusual way.

Front 4

Beard v London General Omnibus

Back 4

FACTS: A bus conductor attemted to drive a bus (without being trained or authorised to do so), and injured the claimant.

PRINCIPLE: An example of an employee going on "a frolic of their own". The bus company had no liability for his actions.

Front 5

Century Insurance v NI Road Transport

Back 5

FACTS: A lorry driver caused an explosion when filling his fuel tank and smoking a cigarette at the same time.

PRINCIPLE: The actions were found to be within the course of his employment as filling his fuel tank was incidental to his duties as an employee.

Front 6

Daniels v Whetsone

Back 6

FACTS: A bouncer attacked a man outside a nightclub.

PRINCIPLE: As he was outside the nightclub, but not trying to enter it, it was not in the course of his employment.

Front 7

Joel v Morrison

Back 7

FACTS:The claimant was hit by a horse and cart driven by the defendant's employee. The defendant's employee. The driver had taken a large detour to visit a friend.

PRINCIPLE: Where an employee goes on "a frolic of his own" his employer will not be liable.

Front 8

Limpus v London Omnibus

Back 8

FACTS: A man was injured after a bus driver got into a race with another bus driver.

PRINCIPLE: The actions were those of an employee carrying out his duties as an employee in an unathorised way, so it was in the course of his employment.

Front 9

Lister v Hesley Hall

Back 9

FACTS: A warden at a children's home with limited supervision sexually abusedd some of the children he was employed to protect.

PRINCIPLE: 1. His actions were found to be in the course of employment, as his role was to look after the children, and he was not supervised himself.

2. Highlighted the importance of a close connection between the employee's duties and their negligent act.

Front 10

MAGA v Trustees of Birmingham Archiocese

Back 10

FACTS: A priest had sexually assaulted a boy. He had not done so using position as a priest, so there was a sufficient disconnection with his employment.

PRINCIPLE: His actions were found not to be in the course of employment because they were not sufficiently related to his job.

Front 11

Makanjuola v MPC

Back 11

FACTS: The defendant police officer had sex with the claimant in exchange for not reporting her illegal immigrant status.

PRINCIPLE: Although the Commissioner would normally be liable for the actions of his police officers, this was held to be outside the scope of the officer's employment.

Front 12

Massey v Crown Life Insurance

Back 12

FACTS: Massey set himself up as a company, and changed his employment status with his work from a contract of employment to a contractor relationship.

PRINCIPLE: whether the individual is called an employee or not is an indicator, but is not conclusive, of whether they will be an employee.

Front 13

Mattis v Pollock

Back 13

FACTS: A bouncer at a London nightclub stabbed a patron after a previous disagreement. His employer had previously encouraged him to use force to break up violence.

PRINCIPLE: The attack was considered to be in the course of employment, so vicarious liability was established.

Front 14

Mersey Docks v Coggins and Griffiths

Back 14

FACTS: A crane driver was hired out, an whilst under the control of the contracting party, negligently injured someone. They argued that the original employer retained responsibility, even when hired out.

PRINCIPLE: Generally, it is presumed that the original employer remains liable for a contracted out employee.

Front 15

Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc

Back 15

FACTS: A Morrison's petrol station employee abusively told a customer to leave, them attacked him on the forecourt. The customer brought a case against the supermarket, claiming they were vicariously liable for their employee's actions.

PRINCIPLE: 1. Retained the "close connection" test from Lister. The court found that ejecting the customer and the following attack were a continuous action and connected to the employee's work of supervisiong the petrol station.

2. Extends the scope of liability of employers for their employee's actions. Liability is more likely to cover an employee acting criminally.

Front 16

O' Kelly v Trusthouse Forte

Back 16

FACTS: Waiters at a London hotel were not obliged to turn up under their contract when asked, and the hotel were not obliged to offer them work.

PRINCIPLE: Mutuality of obligations (where the employee is required to turn up, and the employer is requires to offer work) is a strong indicator of an employment relationship.

Front 17

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions

Back 17

FACTS: A driver paid for his lorry, but had company uniform, colours and a salary. The court had to decide (to establish whether national insurance contributions were due) whether he was an employee or a contractor.

PRINCIPLE: Established the "economic reality" test, which states you must look to the overall nature of the relationship between the individual and the employer.

Front 18

Rose v Plenty

Back 18

FACTS: A milkman allowed a child to help with his rounds despite an express prohibition. The child was then injured due to negligent driving.

PRINCIPLE: Vicarious liability was established on the basis that the child was helping with the employee's duties. The employee was acting in the course of employment, but in an unauthorised way.

Front 19

Smith v Stages

Back 19

FACTS: A businessman travelling in the course of his employment was involved in an accident.

PRINCIPLE: Although commuting to work is not in the course of employment, doing so as part of your job can be.

Front 20

Twine v Bean Express

Back 20

FACTS: A van driver picked up a passenger, despite express prohibitions from his employer. The driver negligently crashed and the passenger was injured.

PRINCIPLE: Where an action is expressly proibited, generally the employer will not be vicariously liable if the employee ignores the prohibition.

Front 21

Viasystems v Thermal Transfer

Back 21

FACTS: A sub- contracted employee negligently caused property damage, after failing to properly fit an air conditioning filter.

PRINCIPLE: Where both employers have equal control over an employee it is possible they can have dual liability.

Front 22

Warner Holidays v Secretary of State for Social Services

Back 22

FACTS: Warner Holidays argued that it was not liable for national insurance contributions for its holiday camp entertainers. It claimed they were contractors. Their appeal failed.

PRINCIPLE: Expanded the list of factors to be considered in using the economic reality test from Ready Mixed Concrete.

APPLIED Ready Mixed Concrete

Front 23

Warren v Henleys

Back 23

FACTS: A petrol station worker physically assaulted a customer who threatened to call the police on him.

PRINCIPLE: Generally, criminal acts are considered to have been committed outside the course of employment.

COMPARE with Mohamud v Morrison

Front 24

Yewens v Noakes

Back 24

FACTS: A tax case concerning the status of a clerk, and whether he was an employee.

PRINCIPLE; the more control the potential employer can exert, the more likely the individual is to be an employee.