MRL3702
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2 2024
UNIQUE NO.184462
DUE DATE: 13 SEPTEMBER 2024
, MRL3702
Assignment 2 Semester 2 2024
Unique Number: 184462
Due Date: 13 September 2024
Labour Law
Seun and Jan's view, suggesting that Sara-Lee would need to raise R100,000 by taking
a bank loan to compensate Sani Jacobs for the damage caused in the accident,
overlooks key aspects of employer liability under the doctrine of vicarious liability. In
legal terms, Sara-Lee’s employer may bear responsibility for the damages, not just
Sara-Lee personally.
Vicarious Liability Explained:
Vicarious liability is a legal principle where an employer can be held liable for the
wrongful acts committed by an employee during the course of their employment,
provided these acts were committed in the scope of employment and for the benefit of
the employer.
Key Factors:
1. Was Sara-Lee acting within the scope of her employment?
In this scenario, Sara-Lee was driving her employer’s car to perform audit
work at the SABC. This task was directly related to her duties as an
employee. Thus, her actions fall within the scope of her employment.
2. Was the act closely connected to the employer’s business?
Since the errand was for work (performing an audit at SABC), Sara-Lee’s use
of the vehicle was connected to the employer’s business. The fact that she
was running late and driving negligently does not negate the employer's
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2 2024
UNIQUE NO.184462
DUE DATE: 13 SEPTEMBER 2024
, MRL3702
Assignment 2 Semester 2 2024
Unique Number: 184462
Due Date: 13 September 2024
Labour Law
Seun and Jan's view, suggesting that Sara-Lee would need to raise R100,000 by taking
a bank loan to compensate Sani Jacobs for the damage caused in the accident,
overlooks key aspects of employer liability under the doctrine of vicarious liability. In
legal terms, Sara-Lee’s employer may bear responsibility for the damages, not just
Sara-Lee personally.
Vicarious Liability Explained:
Vicarious liability is a legal principle where an employer can be held liable for the
wrongful acts committed by an employee during the course of their employment,
provided these acts were committed in the scope of employment and for the benefit of
the employer.
Key Factors:
1. Was Sara-Lee acting within the scope of her employment?
In this scenario, Sara-Lee was driving her employer’s car to perform audit
work at the SABC. This task was directly related to her duties as an
employee. Thus, her actions fall within the scope of her employment.
2. Was the act closely connected to the employer’s business?
Since the errand was for work (performing an audit at SABC), Sara-Lee’s use
of the vehicle was connected to the employer’s business. The fact that she
was running late and driving negligently does not negate the employer's
