Miss M’s Fault and Vicarious Liability Suggested Answer
Examine the meaning and significance of fault. Discuss the extent to which the rules
relating to vicarious liability are based on fault.
(15 marks – AO1 = 5, AO3 = 10)
Fault means legal blame or responsibility for wrongdoing. It often involves a voluntary act
and can be based on intention (acting with purpose), recklessness (taking a known risk), or
negligence (failing to meet the standard of a reasonable person). In strict liability, someone
can be held liable even if they were not at fault.
Fault is significant because it reflects moral blame, helps decide who should be compensated
or punished, and encourages people to take care. Fault also shows who is responsible for
preventing harm in future.
In vicarious liability, an employer is held liable for the torts of their employee when
committed during the course of employment. This often involves strict liability, meaning the
employer can be liable even without fault.
For example, in Limpus v London General Omnibus, the employer was liable even though
the driver disobeyed instructions. In Rose v Plenty, a milkman used a child helper against
orders, but the employer was still liable. Similarly, in Century Insurance v Northern Ireland
Road Transport Board, the employer was liable when an employee caused an explosion
while doing his job. In Mohamud v Morrisons, the employer was liable for an assault
committed by an employee because it was closely connected to his role. These cases show
that employers can be liable even if they gave clear instructions or acted responsibly. This
means the law does not require employer fault, making vicarious liability largely strict and
focused on policy goals, such as ensuring victims get compensation and spreading the risk.
However, there are limits to liability where fault becomes more relevant. In Beard v London
General Omnibus, the conductor drove a bus without permission – this was a ‘frolic of his
own’, so the employer was not liable. In Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd, workers
caused an accident while taking an unauthorised break, and the employer escaped liability. In
Attorney General of the British Virgin Islands v Hartwell, liability was avoided where an
employee’s actions were outside their duties. Also, in Barclays Bank v Various Claimants,
the court found that the tortfeasor was an independent contractor, not an employee, so the
employer was not liable.
In conclusion, vicarious liability is mainly not based on fault, especially where the
employee’s actions are linked to their job. However, there are exceptions where the employer
avoids liability due to a lack of fault, such as where the act is unauthorised or the person is
not an employee. The rules prioritise victim protection and policy over fairness to employers.
Examine the meaning and significance of fault. Discuss the extent to which the rules
relating to vicarious liability are based on fault.
(15 marks – AO1 = 5, AO3 = 10)
Fault means legal blame or responsibility for wrongdoing. It often involves a voluntary act
and can be based on intention (acting with purpose), recklessness (taking a known risk), or
negligence (failing to meet the standard of a reasonable person). In strict liability, someone
can be held liable even if they were not at fault.
Fault is significant because it reflects moral blame, helps decide who should be compensated
or punished, and encourages people to take care. Fault also shows who is responsible for
preventing harm in future.
In vicarious liability, an employer is held liable for the torts of their employee when
committed during the course of employment. This often involves strict liability, meaning the
employer can be liable even without fault.
For example, in Limpus v London General Omnibus, the employer was liable even though
the driver disobeyed instructions. In Rose v Plenty, a milkman used a child helper against
orders, but the employer was still liable. Similarly, in Century Insurance v Northern Ireland
Road Transport Board, the employer was liable when an employee caused an explosion
while doing his job. In Mohamud v Morrisons, the employer was liable for an assault
committed by an employee because it was closely connected to his role. These cases show
that employers can be liable even if they gave clear instructions or acted responsibly. This
means the law does not require employer fault, making vicarious liability largely strict and
focused on policy goals, such as ensuring victims get compensation and spreading the risk.
However, there are limits to liability where fault becomes more relevant. In Beard v London
General Omnibus, the conductor drove a bus without permission – this was a ‘frolic of his
own’, so the employer was not liable. In Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd, workers
caused an accident while taking an unauthorised break, and the employer escaped liability. In
Attorney General of the British Virgin Islands v Hartwell, liability was avoided where an
employee’s actions were outside their duties. Also, in Barclays Bank v Various Claimants,
the court found that the tortfeasor was an independent contractor, not an employee, so the
employer was not liable.
In conclusion, vicarious liability is mainly not based on fault, especially where the
employee’s actions are linked to their job. However, there are exceptions where the employer
avoids liability due to a lack of fault, such as where the act is unauthorised or the person is
not an employee. The rules prioritise victim protection and policy over fairness to employers.
