The court analysed in detail the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall and continued: ‘All of these passages emphasise the necessity of identifying the duty or responsibility of the employer to the victim. If such a duty or responsibility exists, the employer cannot avoid liability because it was delegated to an employee who failed to comply with his employer’s instructions. Even though the employee’s acts are so heinous that they could not reasonably be said to form part of his obligations vis a vis his employer, they are treated as within the scope of his employment vis a vis the victim, since he was employed to discharge the employer’s duty to the victim. If this analysis is right, then the first issue to be determined is whether or not the employer owed a duty to the victim/claimant. This is, no doubt, an area in which there is room for development (cf White v. Jones [1995] 2 AC 207 in relation to negligence). Whether or not a duty of care of the employer to the victim is involved, there must be some form of responsibility towards the victim. Once there is, the employer cannot escape his obligations by delegating to an employee.’
Judges:
Laddie J, Dyson LJ
Citations:
[2001] IRLR 758
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Considered – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
Cited by:
Cited – Mattis v Pollock (T/A Flamingo’s Nightclub) QBD 24-Oct-2002
The claimant sought damages after being assaulted by a doorman employed by the defendant.
Held: The responsibility of the nightclub owner for the actions of his aggressive doorman was not extinguished by the separation in time and place from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Vicarious Liability
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.214874