Liability of one person for torts committed by another person.
General rule: a person who commits a tort will be personally liable: the claimant brings an action against the person who has caused harm/ damage or otherwise fulfilled the requirements of one of the torts that are actionable per se.
arises most commonly in relation to employer-employee relationships.
Advantageous for a claimant to bring an action against an employer via vicarious liability because there is more likelihood the employer will be able to pay the damages. Vicarious liabilty can impose secondary liabilty, can combine with any other tort.
Other relationships:
-Principle and agent
- Business partners
-Vehicle owners and delegated drivers.
Who is an Employee
Nota:
No single test is accepted as authoratative by courts, although it is the economic reality/Pragmatic test that has the most use
Control test
Nota:
Oldest test. Unrealistic to use it in modern employment situations.
Distinguishes between an employee and
independent contractor on the basis of whether the
employer had the right to control the work done
and HOW it was done. - Yewen v Noakes
Organisation or Integration Test
Makes a distinction between a contract of service, whereby 'a man is
employed as part of the business and his work is done as an integral
part of he business and a contract for services, whereby 'work
although done for the business is not integrated into it but is only
accessory to it- Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison v McDonnel and Evans.
Distinction between contract
OF SERVICE and contract
FOR SERVICES is difficult
Nota:
Contract of Service
An organisation engages a person to carry out various tasks within the organisation that are integral to its core purpose
Contract FOR services
An organisation requires a particular service to be supplied and seeks out a person who can provide that service, which is supplementary to the core purpose of the organisation.
Economic reality test
Recognition that control and organisation tests do not
cover all situations/ Economic reality (Pragmatic test)
Developed. - Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of
Pensions Three conditions
Employee must provide work or skill for employer in
return for payment of a wage/renumeration.
The employee agrees expressly or impliedly that
they will work under control of employer
All other circumstances are consistent with
the situation being characterised as a
contract of employment
Nota:
Viasystems v Thermal Transfer - CA held that in cases where employees are borrowed, then in principle there is nor eason why both employers should not be vicariously liable.
Considerations to take into account
Nota:
-Method of payment (Regular etc)
- Tax and National Insurance
-Working hours (fixed/regulated?)
-Provision of Equipment ( employee expects employer to provide, whereas independent contractor generally has their own tools).
- Level of independence (Contractors usually quite independent).
Has a tort been committed
Nota:
There can be no secondary liability if there is no primary liabilty (IE THERE HAS BEEN NO TORT COMMITTED).
The course of Employment
Nota:
Tort must be committed during his work doing an act related to his work - Storey v Ashton.
Authorised Acts
Authorised acts in an unauthorised manner
Nota:
Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board
Express prohibitions ,
Distinctions between manner
and scope of employment.
Requires an assessment of the link between the employee's wrongful act and the tasks he was supposed to be carrying out.
Close connection:
an employee responsible for conveyancing in a firm of si
Employer's Indemnity
Nota:
Employer + employee joint tortfeasors,
Employer may be able to recover some of the damages from the employee.
Jiont liability arises if two or more people cause harm/damage to the same claimant when they are 1) engaged in a joint enterprise 2) One party authorises the tort of another
3) One party is vicariously liable for the torts of the other.
CLA 1978
S1 - Allows D who paid damages to a
claimant to recover a contribution from
any other defendant who is
responsible. Quantification of the
amount, is based on what is just and
equitable in the circumstances.
S 2 (1) - May be liable for all the damages.
Common law indemnity
Can recover full damages if the tort
was caused by the employee's
breach of contract (reasonable care
+ skill) Lister v Romford Ice
Cannot claim an indemnity
at common law unless
completely not to blame for
damages. - Jones v
Manchester Corp
General Requirements
A relationshp that is recognised
as giving rise to vicarious
liability must exist
A tort must have been committed by the
relevant party to that relationship
A tort must have been committed as
part of the dealings of that
relationship
Employer/Employee
Requirements
Person who commits tort
must be an employee as
opposed to an independent
contractor
Employee must have committed a tort
Tort must have been committed in the course of employment.