LCR4805
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 27 MARCH 2025
, LCR4805
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2025
Unique Number:
Due Date: 27 March 2025
Selected Private and Criminal Law Principles of the Internet
Question 1: Vicarious Liability of LIFE (Pty) Ltd
Vicarious liability is a legal principle that holds an employer responsible for the wrongful
acts of an employee if those acts are committed within the scope of their employment.
The key question here is whether Andrew was acting in the course of his employment
when he wrote and published the article.
Andrew works for LIFE (Pty) Ltd, a pharmaceutical company, and his job does not
involve journalism or writing news articles. The fact that he wrote the article while using
his office computer does not automatically mean that his employer should be held liable.
What courts generally look at in cases like this is whether there is a sufficient
connection between the wrongful act and the employee’s job.
In this case, Andrew’s job at LIFE (Pty) Ltd has nothing to do with writing news articles
or investigating companies. He wrote the article as a personal hobby and for a news
website that has no link to his employer. This suggests that LIFE (Pty) Ltd should not
be held vicariously liable.
However, there is one possible argument against LIFE (Pty) Ltd: if the company had
policies that prohibited employees from using work equipment (such as office
computers) for personal activities and failed to enforce these policies, there could be a
weak argument that they indirectly allowed such conduct. But even then, this would not
be enough to establish vicarious liability unless Andrew was acting on behalf of his
employer, which he clearly wasn’t.
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 27 MARCH 2025
, LCR4805
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2025
Unique Number:
Due Date: 27 March 2025
Selected Private and Criminal Law Principles of the Internet
Question 1: Vicarious Liability of LIFE (Pty) Ltd
Vicarious liability is a legal principle that holds an employer responsible for the wrongful
acts of an employee if those acts are committed within the scope of their employment.
The key question here is whether Andrew was acting in the course of his employment
when he wrote and published the article.
Andrew works for LIFE (Pty) Ltd, a pharmaceutical company, and his job does not
involve journalism or writing news articles. The fact that he wrote the article while using
his office computer does not automatically mean that his employer should be held liable.
What courts generally look at in cases like this is whether there is a sufficient
connection between the wrongful act and the employee’s job.
In this case, Andrew’s job at LIFE (Pty) Ltd has nothing to do with writing news articles
or investigating companies. He wrote the article as a personal hobby and for a news
website that has no link to his employer. This suggests that LIFE (Pty) Ltd should not
be held vicariously liable.
However, there is one possible argument against LIFE (Pty) Ltd: if the company had
policies that prohibited employees from using work equipment (such as office
computers) for personal activities and failed to enforce these policies, there could be a
weak argument that they indirectly allowed such conduct. But even then, this would not
be enough to establish vicarious liability unless Andrew was acting on behalf of his
employer, which he clearly wasn’t.
