Tort Law – Vicarious Liability Revision
Notes
Definition of Vicarious Liability
Vicarious Liability: Liability imposed by law on one person for acts committed by another
Element 1 – Was a Tort Committed
Element 1: A tort must have been committed
Element 2 – Employment Relationship
Element 2: Was the tortfeasor an employee or in a similar relationship
Three Main Tests: 1) Control Test
2) Integration Test
3) Economic Reality (Multiple) Test
Multiple Test – Ready Mixed Concrete v National Insurance: 1) Person agrees to provide
work for payment
2) Person agrees to be under employer's control
3) Terms of contract are consistent with an employment contract
‘Employment-like’ Relationships – Cox v MoJ: 1) Was harm done by person whose
activities are an integral part of D’s business?
2) Was the risk of harm caused by assigning that activity to the person?
Element 3 – Acting in Course of Employment
Joel v Morison: No liability if employee was on a 'frolic of his own'
Salmond Test – Unintentional Torts: 1) Wrongful authorised act – Poland v Parr
2) Authorised act in unauthorised manner – Limpus v London, Rose v Plenty, Twine v Beans
Intentional Torts: No liability if tort was on employee’s frolic
Lister v Helsey Hall Ltd: Liability if there’s a sufficiently close connection between tort and
employment
Various v Morrison: No liability if the tort was a deliberate act of revenge by the employee
Notes
Definition of Vicarious Liability
Vicarious Liability: Liability imposed by law on one person for acts committed by another
Element 1 – Was a Tort Committed
Element 1: A tort must have been committed
Element 2 – Employment Relationship
Element 2: Was the tortfeasor an employee or in a similar relationship
Three Main Tests: 1) Control Test
2) Integration Test
3) Economic Reality (Multiple) Test
Multiple Test – Ready Mixed Concrete v National Insurance: 1) Person agrees to provide
work for payment
2) Person agrees to be under employer's control
3) Terms of contract are consistent with an employment contract
‘Employment-like’ Relationships – Cox v MoJ: 1) Was harm done by person whose
activities are an integral part of D’s business?
2) Was the risk of harm caused by assigning that activity to the person?
Element 3 – Acting in Course of Employment
Joel v Morison: No liability if employee was on a 'frolic of his own'
Salmond Test – Unintentional Torts: 1) Wrongful authorised act – Poland v Parr
2) Authorised act in unauthorised manner – Limpus v London, Rose v Plenty, Twine v Beans
Intentional Torts: No liability if tort was on employee’s frolic
Lister v Helsey Hall Ltd: Liability if there’s a sufficiently close connection between tort and
employment
Various v Morrison: No liability if the tort was a deliberate act of revenge by the employee
