Law of Tort
23rd November
Vicarious Liability
One person being liable for the torts of another.
Employer is also liable for torts of employee.
Reasons for vicarious liability:
- Employer can take out insurance
- Argued that it improves standards
- Employer benefits from work employee
- Employer can pass on loss to the consumers.
Vicarious liability of employers:
Three requirements must be met:
A tort must be committed – e.g Negligence, Trespass, Fraud.
Must be committed by an Employee – Distinction between employees and
independent contractors.
Must be committed in course of employment.
Example:
- Taxi driver: Are they employees or individual contractors? Even though they are
controlled a lot by employers.
, 3 Tests to spot if somebody is an employee or individual contractor:
Control Test:
- Does the employer tell someone what to do and how to do it? If yes then it is an
employee.
- Cox v MoJ [2016] does employer direct the employee?
- Mrs Cox injured by prisoner whilst working in prison.
- Prisoner’s relationship is that of an employee, as working in the kitchen.
The significance of the control test today is that the employer can direct what the employee
does.
The Organisation Test (Integration test)
- This asks the question whether a person is an integral part of the business or simply
an accessory to it?
- Cassidy v Minister of Health [1951] (CA) : The question arose whether a surgeon in a
hospital was an employee or an independent contractor.
- HELD: Surgeon was an integral part of the hospital and the hospital was vicariously
liable for the surgeon’s acts.
The Multiple Test (Economic reality test)
- This test involves the courts taking a number of matters into account:
Method of payment – regulary payment - EMPLOYEE
Deduction of tax – if tax is deducted before payment - EMPLOYEE
Provision of tools – if provided - EMPLOYEE
Hours – if regular - EMPLOYEE
Business risk – if take risks – INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Can the person be dismissed? - If yes - EMPLOYEE
Description of the person – how they are described – RELEVANT BUT NOT
CONCLUSIVE
Ready Mixed Concrete v Minster of Pensions and National Insurance [1968]
23rd November
Vicarious Liability
One person being liable for the torts of another.
Employer is also liable for torts of employee.
Reasons for vicarious liability:
- Employer can take out insurance
- Argued that it improves standards
- Employer benefits from work employee
- Employer can pass on loss to the consumers.
Vicarious liability of employers:
Three requirements must be met:
A tort must be committed – e.g Negligence, Trespass, Fraud.
Must be committed by an Employee – Distinction between employees and
independent contractors.
Must be committed in course of employment.
Example:
- Taxi driver: Are they employees or individual contractors? Even though they are
controlled a lot by employers.
, 3 Tests to spot if somebody is an employee or individual contractor:
Control Test:
- Does the employer tell someone what to do and how to do it? If yes then it is an
employee.
- Cox v MoJ [2016] does employer direct the employee?
- Mrs Cox injured by prisoner whilst working in prison.
- Prisoner’s relationship is that of an employee, as working in the kitchen.
The significance of the control test today is that the employer can direct what the employee
does.
The Organisation Test (Integration test)
- This asks the question whether a person is an integral part of the business or simply
an accessory to it?
- Cassidy v Minister of Health [1951] (CA) : The question arose whether a surgeon in a
hospital was an employee or an independent contractor.
- HELD: Surgeon was an integral part of the hospital and the hospital was vicariously
liable for the surgeon’s acts.
The Multiple Test (Economic reality test)
- This test involves the courts taking a number of matters into account:
Method of payment – regulary payment - EMPLOYEE
Deduction of tax – if tax is deducted before payment - EMPLOYEE
Provision of tools – if provided - EMPLOYEE
Hours – if regular - EMPLOYEE
Business risk – if take risks – INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Can the person be dismissed? - If yes - EMPLOYEE
Description of the person – how they are described – RELEVANT BUT NOT
CONCLUSIVE
Ready Mixed Concrete v Minster of Pensions and National Insurance [1968]
