Vicarious Liability

Case Law Grid

Tort Law Vicarious Liability Case Law Grid

Methods of Testing Employee Status
Rule Case name and date Case Details Outcome Significance of Case
1.Control Yewen v Noakes A man and his family occupied a number of Not an employee An employee is a person subject to the command of his master as
Test [1880] rooms within an office building on the to the manner in which he shall do his work.
alleged basis that he was the caretaker of
the building owner. The man was a clerk
who was paid a salary of 150 pounds per
annum.
1.Control Performing Rights McArdie J: The test concerns ‘the nature and degree of detailed control’
Test Society v Mitchel and
Booker [1924]
1.Control Short v J W Henderson Key Features which show if a master has control over a servant: (Lord Thankerton)
Test LTD [1946]  Power to suspend the servant
 Right to suspend and dismiss
 Payment of wages

1.Control Mersey Docks & Crane driver hired out by his employers, Employer would be HLD’s:
Test Harbour Board v Harbour board. By negligence insured a Vicariously Liable  The terms in any hire contract are not decisive
Coggins and Griffiths person during course of employment.  The permanent employer is presumed liable unless the
(Liverpool) Ltd [1947] Harbour paid wages and kept power to contrary can be proved.
sack him. If an employee alone is hired out with equipment the inference is
not as strong as the hirer may not have control over how the
equipment can be used.
1.Control Hawley v Luminar Bouncer who was supplied to a night club As the club exercised so
More recent development of the control test.
Test Leisure Ltd [2006] by a firm assaulted a customer outside D’s much control over the
club. Injured claimant sued the club. bouncer in how he
should do his work, it
employed him and was
vicariously liable for his
actions.
2.The Stevenson Jordan and Lord Denning established this test in this case:
integration/ Harrison Ltd v  A worker will be an employee if his work is fully integrated into the business.
organization Mcdonald and Evans  If a person’s work is only accessory to the business, that person is not an employee.
test. [1969]

1
 Vicarious Liability
Case Law Grid

3.The Ready Mixed Concrete A driver contracted with a mixed concrete Not an employee of McKenna J: Three conditions which had to be met before an employment
economic (south east) Ltd v company for the delivery of concrete. The the company. relationship had been identified.
reality or contract declared him an “independent 1. The employee agrees to provide work or skill in return for a
Minister of Pensions
wage
multiple test and National Insurance contractor” and set out wages and
2. Employee expressly or impliedly accepts that the work will be
[1968] expenses. The driver was to purchase his
subject to the control of the employer
own vehicle, yet with a requirement that 3. All other considerations in the contract are consistent with there
the vehicle be painted in company colours. being a contract of employment rather than any other
He was to drive the vehicle himself but relationship.
under compliance with certain company’s Updated Tests:
rules including, for example, the manner of 1. The ownership
vehicle repairs and payments. 2. The method of payment
3. If tax deducted from wage
4. Any description of role
5. Any independence in doing job.
4.Close Mohamud v Employee violently assaulted a customer. Morrison’s Vicariously 1. Consider the nature of the job
connection Morrison’s Liable as there was 2. Was there sufficient connection?
in character Supermarkets Plc sufficient close
to an [2016] connection between
employer/ the employees’ job and
employee the assault.
relationship
4.Close Fletcher v Chancery D’s employer operated a plumbing Employer was Recent development.
connection Supplies Ltd [2017] business with a shop and an office on Vicariously Liable
in character opposite sides of a road. The employee in
to an question worked at the shop on the same
employer/ side of the road as the cycle lane.
employee
relationship
4.Close Cox v Ministry of Prisoner working in the kitchen dropped Prison was Vicariously D’s cannot avoid vicarious liability on the basis of technical
connection Justice [2016] UKSC 10 two bags of rice on Mrs. Cox, causing her Liable for the prisoner. arguments on the employment status of the individual who
in character severe back injury committed the tort.
to an
employer/
employee
relationship
Acting in the Limpus v London The employer instructed its bus driver not Employer was Liable to Bus drivers racing in working hours is doing something authorized

2
 Vicarious Liability
Case Law Grid

Course of General [1826] to race other drivers when collecting the claimant as the in an unauthorised manner.
Employmen passengers. One driver caused an accident driver was doing what
t when racing. he was employed to
do- even against
orders.
Acting in the Rose v Plenty [1976] A dairy instructed its milkmen not to use The daisy as Vicariously If the employee gives an unauthorised lift the employer will not be
Course of child helpers on their milk rounds. One Liable for the liable.
Employmen milkman used a boy to help him but boy milkman’s negligence
t was injured on the round due to the milk as one judge suggested
man’s negligent driving of the electric milk that the dairy was
float. benefiting from the
work done by the boy.
Acting in the Twine v Beans Express The claimant’s husband was killed through The employer was Not Harpwood concludes that the reason that the employer was found
Course of [1946] negligence of a driver who had been Liable as the conductor not to be found vicariously liable as the employer has derived no
Employmen forbidden to give lifts. This instruction was was doing something benefit from the forbidden act.
t supported by notices on the side of the van outside of his course of
stating who could be carried in it. his employment.
Acting Beard v London A bus conductor, employed to collect fares, The employer was Not Conductor driving the bus was outside employment and employer
Outside General Omnibus Co. drove a bus without the authority of his Liable as the conductor not liable.
Employmen [1900] employer, injuring the claimant. was doing something
t outside the course of
hos employment.
Employee Lister v Helsey Hall The warden of a school for children with HOL: Was a close Liability for criminal acts - where the actions of the employee are
Committing [2001] emotional difficulties sexually assaulted connection between closely connected to the employment
a Criminal some of the children. He was convicted of his job and what he did
Act criminal offences. as the assaults were
carried out on the
school premises.
Employee N v Chief Constable of Two hours after he had gone off duty, D The court held that
Committing Merseyside Police was parked outside a club still in uniform. D there was No Close
a Criminal [2006] offered to take to the police station a Connection between
Act woman, whom a first aider at the club was his employment and
worried. D, took the woman to his house the assaults. D had
where he committed various sexual merely made use of his
assaults on her. uniform to gain trust
and abuse it. The Chief
Constable was Not

3
 Vicarious Liability
Case Law Grid

liable for the officer’s

actions.
Employee Mohamud v A man employed at the defendant’s petrol Court decided that the Were the tortfeasors actions within the course of employment?
Committing Morrison’s station assaulted a customer, causing him employee was acting Court said that assault fell within the "field of activities" assigned
a Criminal Supermarkets [2016] serious injury. The Supreme Court within the field of to him.
Act considered the job that had been given to employment.
the employee and whether there was a
sufficient close connection between the
employee’s job and what he did to the
customer.
Employee Hilton v Thomas Some employees were working away from The employers were
Acting on a Burton Ltd [1961] their workplace. They took an Not Liable to pay
Frolic of unauthorised break by driving the firm’s compensation for the
their Own van to a café for tea but then had an victim of the accident
accident on the way back. One of the as the workmen were
workmen was killed and his widow sued on an unauthorised
the employer. frolic of their own and
not acting within the
course of employment.