Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Tort Law - VL
Vicarious Liability
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What is Vicarious Liability? | When employers are liable for the torts of their employees (Strict Liability) |
| What are the public policy reasons for imposing liability on employers? | Employer more likely to have means of paying comp, ensures they are held accountable for their employees |
| What is test for VL? | (1) Employee/Rel Akin to Employment (2) Close Connection test (3) Salmond Test |
| What is the Salmond Test? | (1) tort must be a wrongful act authorised by employer or (2) wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing something authorised by employer |
| What is meant by the term, 'going on a frolic of their own'? | no close connection between what they were doing and what they were employed to do |
| Limpus v London Omnibus Co | Bus driver caused accident from driving - closely connected to employment |
| Beard v London Omnibus Co | Bus conductor caused accident from driving - not closely connected to employment |
| Rose v Plenty | 13-year old injured working for milkman - liable. Scarman: "Principle of VL is one of public policy" |
| Hilton v Thomas Burton | Employee was on a 'frolic of his own' when returning van so not liable |
| Lister v Helsey Hall | Employer (school) liable for employing sexually abusive warden |
| Mohamud v Morrison | Racially abusive petrol station cashier - liable - merely bad way of doing what he's employed to do |
| Bellman v Northampton Recruitment (not essential) | Nature of discussions alike work-meeting so close connection - liable |
| Morrisons v Various Claimants | Persuing personal vendetta (publishing private info) so no close connection - not liable |
| Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions | Test to determine if you are an employee: (1) Economic reality test (2) Control Test |
| Barclays Bank v Various Claimants | Doctor is an independant contractor not employee - not liable |
| Christian Brothers Case | Abusive religious teachers in 'relationship akin to employment' with institute - liable |
| Armes v Nottinghamshire CC | Abusive foster parents in 'relationship akin to employment' with council - liable |
| Cox v Ministry of Justice | 'relationship aking to employment' between prisoners working in kitchen and Ministry of Justice so liable |
| Eval? |
Created by:
Oscar.G
Popular Law sets