Fichas
Vicarious Liability Cases
Fichas del conjunto (9)
- 1Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd (2006) Control Test.The courts decided that the bouncer was an employee as the club exercised control over the bouncer in how he should work. They employed him, so were vicariously liable for his actions.
- 2Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968) Economic reality test.Three conditions must be met to show an employment relationship:
1) The employee agrees to work for a wage.
2) The employee accepts that their work is controlled by the employer.
3) The contract is consistent with one of employment.
The drivers were not employees. - 3JGE v Trustee of Portsmouth RCDT (2012) Modern Test.The CofA decided that even though the Priest wasn't an employee, his relationship with the church was sufficiently close to one of employment and it was fair, just and reasonable to hold the church vicariously liable.
- 4Mohamud v Morrisons (2016) Modern test.1) What functions or field of activities have been entrusted to the employee by the employer?
2) Is there a sufficient connection between the employee in his employment and his wrongful conduct to make it right for the employer to be liable under social justice? - 5Viasystems Ltd v Thermal Transfer Ltd (2005) Multiple employers.An employee can have more than one employer who can be vicariously liable for their actions.
- 6Limpus v London General Omnibus Company (1862) Liability when acting in the course of employment.The employer was liable for the claimant's injuries as the driver was doing what he was employed to d even though he was acting in an unauthorised way.
- 7Lister v Hesley Hall. Liability when acting in the course of employment.The school were liable as the warden's function was to care for the boys and the fact that he performed this function in an abusive manner does not sever the connection with his employment for the purposes of vicarious liability.
- 8Century Insurance Co. Ltd v Northern Ireland Transport Board (1942) Loability when acting in the course of employment.The employer was vicariously liable as the driver was in the course of his employment even though he was doing it negligently.
- 9Hilton v Thomas Burton Ltd (1961) Employers acting on a 'frolic' of their own.The employers weren't vicariously liable as the workmen were on an unauthorised frolic of their own and not acting in the course of employment.
Información
- Descripción
- A level Law Fichas sobre Vicarious Liability Cases, creado por Bremner Doherty el 02/12/2019.
- Creado por
- Bremner Doherty
- Visitas
- 0
- Valoración