LCR4805
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2025
Unique #:895789
Due Date: 27 April 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1
Vicarious liability refers to the legal principle where an employer is held liable for
the wrongful acts of its employee, provided that the acts were committed in the
course and scope of employment. In this case, LIFE (Pty) Ltd could potentially be
held liable for Andrew’s allegedly defamatory article published on Community
News. However, the determination of vicarious liability depends on key legal
considerations.
Elements of Vicarious Liability
For vicarious liability to be established, three key elements must be satisfied:
1. The employee must have committed a wrongful act (i.e., a delict).
2. There must be an employer-employee relationship at the time the wrongful
act was committed.
3. The wrongful act must have been committed in the course and scope of
employment.
If these elements are satisfied, the employer may be held liable for the delictual
conduct of the employee, unless it can be shown that the employee was acting
outside the course and scope of employment (i.e., on a ―frolic of his own‖).
Application to the Facts
Although Andrew is employed by LIFE (Pty) Ltd, his defamatory conduct was not
directly related to his work at the pharmaceutical company. He wrote the article
for Community News, an online platform unrelated to his employer’s business.
However, two facts complicate the issue:
1. He used his office computer to write the article – While this suggests
that he was utilizing company resources, South African courts have held
that mere use of an employer’s equipment does not automatically establish
vicarious liability. The critical question is whether his actions were
sufficiently connected to his employment duties.
2. Was Andrew on a “frolic of his own”? – Courts have distinguished
between acts performed within the course of employment and those where
the employee was engaged in personal endeavors. In K v Minister of
Safety and Security (2005), the Constitutional Court emphasized that an
employer is not liable when an employee acts in a manner that is entirely
unrelated to their official duties. Here, Andrew’s role at LIFE (Pty) Ltd
involves pharmaceuticals, and writing news articles falls outside the scope
Varsity Cube 2024 +27 81 278 3372
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2025
Unique #:895789
Due Date: 27 April 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1
Vicarious liability refers to the legal principle where an employer is held liable for
the wrongful acts of its employee, provided that the acts were committed in the
course and scope of employment. In this case, LIFE (Pty) Ltd could potentially be
held liable for Andrew’s allegedly defamatory article published on Community
News. However, the determination of vicarious liability depends on key legal
considerations.
Elements of Vicarious Liability
For vicarious liability to be established, three key elements must be satisfied:
1. The employee must have committed a wrongful act (i.e., a delict).
2. There must be an employer-employee relationship at the time the wrongful
act was committed.
3. The wrongful act must have been committed in the course and scope of
employment.
If these elements are satisfied, the employer may be held liable for the delictual
conduct of the employee, unless it can be shown that the employee was acting
outside the course and scope of employment (i.e., on a ―frolic of his own‖).
Application to the Facts
Although Andrew is employed by LIFE (Pty) Ltd, his defamatory conduct was not
directly related to his work at the pharmaceutical company. He wrote the article
for Community News, an online platform unrelated to his employer’s business.
However, two facts complicate the issue:
1. He used his office computer to write the article – While this suggests
that he was utilizing company resources, South African courts have held
that mere use of an employer’s equipment does not automatically establish
vicarious liability. The critical question is whether his actions were
sufficiently connected to his employment duties.
2. Was Andrew on a “frolic of his own”? – Courts have distinguished
between acts performed within the course of employment and those where
the employee was engaged in personal endeavors. In K v Minister of
Safety and Security (2005), the Constitutional Court emphasized that an
employer is not liable when an employee acts in a manner that is entirely
unrelated to their official duties. Here, Andrew’s role at LIFE (Pty) Ltd
involves pharmaceuticals, and writing news articles falls outside the scope
Varsity Cube 2024 +27 81 278 3372
