Vicarious Liability

Vicarious Liability

1. Justification

   • The master has the 'deepest pockets'. The wealth of a defendant, or the fact that he has access to resources via insurance, has in some cases had an unconscious influence on the development of legal principles
   • Vicarious liability encourages accident prevention by giving an employer a financial interest in encouraging his employees to take care for the safety of others.
   • As the employer makes a profit from the activities of his employees, he should also bear any losses that those activities cause

2. Definition

   • Employers are vicariously liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment

3. Elements

   • 1) Wrongful or tortious act
     • The Court will first and foremost determine whether a tort has been committed
     • All elements of particular tort must be satisfied
     • Pui Lai Ong v Kassim bin Yunus & Anor
   • 2) Special Relationship
     • Special relationship is said to exist between an employer and his employee
     • i) Control Test
       • Collins v Hertfordshire County Council
       • To determine the nature of the relationship between the two parties
       • Traditional test
     • ii) Organisation Test
       • Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v McDonald and Evans
       • does the worker economically a dependent to a company or if the worker’s work or activities is an essential component of the business, if the answer is yes, than the worker will be likely to be consider as employee .
     • iii) Multiple Test
       • The courts then recognised that a single test was not enough to determine employment status so the courts developed a multiple test
       • Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions
       • based on common sense approach
   • 3) committed within the course of employment
     • a) Carelessness of worker in the performance of his job
       • Lim Ah Tong v Ang Yau Chee & Anor
     • b) Unauthorised mode of doing something authorised
       • Bayley v Manchester
     • c) Tort committed in protection of employer's property
       • Poland v Parr & Sons
     • d) Worker delegating his responsibility
       • Ikiw v Samuels
     • e) Worker acting for his own benefit
       • Zakariah b Che Soh v Chooi Kum Loong
     • f) Acting against employer's express prohibition
       • Rand v Craig
     • i) Commission of the theft by employee
       • Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd
     • h) fraud of the worker
       • Lloyd v Grace, Smith & co.
     • g) Employee acting on a frolic of his own
       • Keppel Bus Company Ltd v Saad bin Ahmad
     • j) Sexual abuse by employee
       • Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd
     • k) VL for breach of statutory duty
       • Majrowski v Guy's
     • l) time and its relevance in determining course of employment
     • m) location or permission on which the injury occurs

4. by : Nur Adibah Zahra