Lloyd v Grace, Smith and Co: HL 1912

Mrs Lloyd delivered the title deeds of her cottages at Ellesmere Port to the solicitors’ managing clerk, who defrauded her.
Held: Vicarious liability can extend to fraudulent acts or omissions if those were carried out in the course of the employment or within the scope of the apparent authority, albeit by an employee or a partner conducting the business of a type which he had a right to conduct. The principal was liable for the fraud of the agent because conveyancing is part of the ordinary business of solicitors. The client had been invited by the firm to deal with their managing clerk. It was irrelevant that the agent acted with a dishonest purpose for his own ends. His act was of the class or kind of acts which fall within the ordinary business of solicitors.

Lord Macnaghten, Earl Loreburn LC
[1912] AC 716, [1912] UKHL 1
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – McGowan and Co v Dyer 1873
Story on Agency states the general rule that the principal is liable to third persons in a civil suit ‘for the frauds, deceits, concealments, misrepresentations, torts, negligences, and other malfeasances or misfeasances, and omissions of duty of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credits Guarantee Department HL 19-Feb-1999
The wrong of the servant or agent for which the master or principal is liable is one committed in the case of a servant in the course of his employment, and in the case of an agent in the course of his authority. It is fundamental to the whole . .
Cited – Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credits Guarantee Department HL 19-Feb-1999
The wrong of the servant or agent for which the master or principal is liable is one committed in the case of a servant in the course of his employment, and in the case of an agent in the course of his authority. It is fundamental to the whole . .
Cited – J J Coughlan Ltd v Ruparelia and others CA 21-Jul-2003
The defendant firm of solicitors had acted in a matter involving a fraud. One partner was involved in the fraud. The claimants sought to recover from the partnership.
Held: ‘The issue is not how the transaction ought properly to be described, . .
Cited – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Cited – Frans Maas (Uk) Ltd v Samsung Electronics (Uk) Ltd ComC 30-Jun-2004
A large volume of mobile phones were stolen from a warehouse. The owner claimed damages from the bailee. The defendant said that standard terms applied limiting their responsibility to value calculated by weight.
Held: There was a bailment . .
Cited – Morris v C W Martin and Sons Ltd CA 1965
The plaintiff took her mink stole to the defendants for cleaning. An employee received and stole the fur. The judge had held that the defendants were not liable because the theft was not committed in the course of employment.
Held: The . .
Cited – 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 – Gravil v Carroll and Another CA 18-Jun-2008
The claimant was injured by an unlawful punch thrown by the first defendant when they played rugby. He sought damages also against the defendant’s club, and now appealed from a finding that they were not vicariously liable. The defendant player’s . .
Cited – Maga v The Trustees of The Birmingham Archdiocese of The Roman Catholic Church CA 16-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages after alleging sexual abuse by a catholic priest. The judge had found the church not vicariously liable for the injuries, and that the archdiocese had not been under a duty further to . .
Cited – Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
Cited – Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Legal Professions

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.183574

Rex v Huggins and Barnes: KBD 1730

Gaoler – Murder of Prisoner by Lack of Care

The defendant Huggins was warden of the Fleet Prison. A prisoner, Arne, died in 1725. Barnes, a gaoler had put him in a room ‘without fire, chamber-pot or close-stool, the walls being damp and unwholesome, and the room built over the common sewer’. Thus confined, Arne ‘by reason of his imprisonment in the said room sickened, and by duress thereof died’ 44 days later. Huggins was indicted and tried at the Old Bailey for his murder, under an allegation that as warden of the Fleet he ‘had the care and custody of the prisoners committed thither’, that ‘Barnes was his servant, employed by him in taking care of the prisoners’, that at the time of Arne’s imprisonment Barnes and Huggins knew the room to be as before described and that Huggins was ‘aiding and abetting Barnes in committing the said felony and murder.’ The jury had returned a special verdict finding that Barnes was in fact the servant of Huggins’ deputy, Gibbon, and that Huggins had visited the cell only once, some 15 days before Arne died.
Held: In a certiorari in the Kings Bench, the judges concluded that Barnes, if indicted, would, on the facts as found by the jury, have been guilty of murder, but that Huggins was not guilty.
Lord Raymond LCJ said: ‘Though he was warden, yet it being found, that there was a deputy; he is not, as warden, guilty of the facts committed under the authority of his deputy. He shall answer as superior for his deputy civilly, but not criminally. It has been settled, that though a sheriff must answer for the offences of his gaoler civilly, that is, he is subject in an action, to make satisfaction to the party injured; yet he is not to answer criminally for the offences of his under-officer. He only is criminally punishable, who immediately does the act, or permits it to be done. Hale’s P. C. 114. So that if an act be done by an under-officer, unless it is done by the command or direction, or with the consent of the principal, the principal is not criminally punishable for it. In this case the fact was done by Barnes; and it no where appears in the special verdict, that the prisoner at the Bar ever commanded, or directed, or consented to this duress of imprisonment, which was the cause of Arne’s death.’
In Strange’s report: ‘It is a point not to be disputed, but that in criminal cases the principal is not answerable for the act of the deputy, as he is in civil cases: they must each answer for their own acts, and stand or fall by their own behaviour. All the authors that treat of criminal proceedings, proceed on the foundation of this distinction; that to affect the superior by the act of the deputy, there must be the command of the superior, which is not found in this case.’
Fitz-Gibbons reported: ‘The act of the deputy cannot criminally affect the principal; so that unless the act be by command, consent, or privity of the principal, so as to make him an abettor, he cannot be guilty.’

Lord Raymond LCJ, Lord Chief Justice
(1730) 2 Str 883, (1730) 2 Ld Raym 1574, (1730) Fitz 177
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Craik, Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates’ Court Admn 30-Apr-2010
The claimant a retired Chief Constable sought judicial review of a decision to commit him for trial on a charge of unlawful imprisonment. The suspect and now prosecutor had been arrested and held in custody, but without the necessary timely review . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Crime, Vicarious Liability

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.408854

Vaickuviene and Others v J Sainsbury Plc: SCS 11 Jul 2013

A Mr Romasov was killed by a fellow employee in a Sainsbury’s supermarket; this fellow employee had, two days earlier, told Mr Romasov that he did not like immigrants and that he should go back to his own country. There was an argument when the co-employee objected to Mr Romasov sharing his table and a further argument in the toilets. Later the co-employee picked up a kitchen knife from the kitchenware section of the supermarket and stabbed Mr Romasov in one of the aisles.
Held: The action failed. Mo matter how broadly the context of the stabber’s employment was looked at, it was not possible to hold that Sainsbury’s retail business in general or their engagement of persons to stack shelves in supermarkets in particular carried any special or additional risk that persons such as the deceased would either be harassed or otherwise come to harm as a result of deliberate violence from fellow employees.
Lord Carloway referred to his previous judgment in Wilson v Exel saying: ‘the decision in Wilson (supra) is not to be interpreted so narrowly as to be applicable only to conduct in the nature of ‘pranks. The use of the expression ‘frolic’ in that case. . is, as already noted, not indicative of triviality with respect to the wrongful acts in question. The principles set out in that case may be taken to be of general application in cases of intentional wrongdoing. Whilst the pursuers have sought to distance themselves from the ‘random attack’ by characterising the deceased’s murder as part of a course of conduct amounting to harassment, there is no basis for departing from the court’s analysis of the law in Wilson (supra). Referring as a whole to Mr McCulloch’s conduct from 13 to 15 April, being the period over which the harassment is alleged to have occurred, does not remedy the fact that there is no connection between the harassment and what McCulloch was employed to do. Rather, McCulloch’s employment simply provided him with the opportunity to carry out his own personal campaign of harassment with tragic consequences.’

Lord Carloway, Lord Brodie, Lord McGhie
[2013] ScotCS CSIH – 67, [2012] CSIH 67, 2013 SC 178, 2013 GWD 25-512, 2013 Rep LR 106, 2013 SLT 1032, [2013] RA 67, [2013] IRLR 792, 2012 GWD 30-624, 2014 SC 147
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Wilson v Exel UK Ltd SCS 29-Apr-2010
A supervisor in a depot was entrusted to implement the employers’ health and safety policies. In a prank, he forcefully pulled an employee’s head back by her hair.
Held: The pursuer’s appeal against rejection of the claim based upon vicarious . .

Cited by:
Cited – Graham v Commercial Bodyworks Ltd CA 5-Feb-2015
The claimant had been very badly burned. He was covered in flammable liquid when a co-worker lit a cigarette.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. ‘although the defendant employers did create a risk by requiring their employees to work with . .
Cited – Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.513808

Launchbury v Morgans: CA 1971

The wife owned the car. The husband who had drunk to excess drove the car with her permission, causing severe injury to the passengers and his own death. She was not present.
Held: From considerations of policy, as the owner of the family car was insured, she should bear the loss. Lord Denning MR said: ‘The reason behind this principle is at bottom the principle which lies behind all vicarious liability. It is to put the responsibility onto the person who ought in justice to bear it. Now the owner or hirer of the vehicle is in most cases the person who ought to bear the responsibility.’
Megaw LJ said: ‘[I]f one were to bring in questions of insurance, one might speculate . . [b]ut this court may not, in accordance with its judicial duty, indulge in such speculation. [Counsel] was doing no more than carrying out his duty to the court in refraining from discussing the insurance position.’

Lord Denning MR, Megaw LJ
[1971] 2 QB 245
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council CA 1972
The court considered the liability in negligence of a Council whose inspector had approved a building which later proved defective.
Held: The Council had control of the work and with such control came a responsibility to take care in . .
Appeal from – Launchbury v Morgans HL 9-May-1972
The owner of a car appealed against a ruling that she was responsible for injury suffered by the three respondents who had been passengers in the car when it crashed. The owner had not been with them. The care was driven by her husband with her . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Vicarious Liability

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.186895

Maga v The Trustees of The Birmingham Archdiocese of The Roman Catholic Church: CA 16 Mar 2010

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages after alleging sexual abuse by a catholic priest. The judge had found the church not vicariously liable for the injuries, and that the archdiocese had not been under a duty further to pursue the investigation of the reports received by them at the time. The respondent appealed saying that the judge had incorrectly found the claimant to lack capacity.
Held: The judge had misdescribed the test for capacity, however, ‘on the question of whether section 28(1) applied . . the issue is certainly not one of discretion; nor is it an issue of primary fact. It is a matter of judgment, and one which is primarily for the first instance tribunal. There may, in an Aristotelian sense, be only one right answer to the question whether a claimant was able to conduct the litigation, but in this imperfect world, it must, in some cases, be an issue on which reasonable and fully informed Judges could differ. In such cases, and this is, in my view, such a one, an appellate court should not interfere with the Judge’s conclusion unless he has relied on irrelevant evidence, ignored relevant evidence, or misunderstood some evidence.’ The claimant was correctly found to lack capacity.
As to the vicarious liability of the archdiocese, the priest had not sought to draw the claimant within his ‘priestly activities’. This issue ‘although very much fact-dependant, is ultimately one of law rather than of inference from facts . .’ and ‘there are a number of factors, which, when taken together, persuade me that there was a sufficiently close connection between Father Clonan’s employment as priest at the Church and the abuse which he inflicted on the claimant to render it fair and just to impose vicarious liability for the abuse on his employer, the Archdiocese.’ Nevertheless, it was part of his duty to evangelise and befriend non-catholics. The claimant being 12, and the position of the priest in charge of youth activities also gave him special responsibilities. The claimant’s appeal succeeded.
As to the church’s duty to take the investigation further, the initial response was in accordance with standards and expectations at the time. The allegation whilst gross was not of the most serious, and it had been put to the priest who had denied it. However, having once been warned, the senior priest came under a duty to keep a closer eye on the priest. Had he done so further assaults would not have taken place. The church was liable for the acts of its senior priest. Applying the test from Caparo, the judge had been wrong to find no duty of care in the Archdiocese.

Lord Neuberger MR, Longmore LJ, Smith LJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 256, [2010] PTSR 1618, [2010] 1 WLR 1441
Bailii, Times
Limitation Act 1980 28(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kirby v Leather CA 1965
The plaintiff crashed into a van whilst riding his moped and suffered serious brain damage. An inquiry as to a party’s competence to conduct a case had to focus on his capacity to conduct the proceedings. In this case the plaintiff ‘was not capable . .
Mentioned – ST v North Yorkshire County Council CA 14-Jul-1998
The court considered the liability of the respondent for sexual assaults committed by an employee teacher when taking students on school trips.
Held: The Local Authority was not vicariously liable for sexual assault committed by employee . .
Authoritative – 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 – Lloyd v Grace, Smith and Co HL 1912
Mrs Lloyd delivered the title deeds of her cottages at Ellesmere Port to the solicitors’ managing clerk, who defrauded her.
Held: Vicarious liability can extend to fraudulent acts or omissions if those were carried out in the course of the . .
Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Lindsay v Wood QBD 16-Nov-2006
The claimant suffered severe brain injury in a crash. The parties sought guidance form the court as to his legal capacity.
Held: The fact that a party may be particularly susceptible to exploitation was a relevant element when considering his . .
Cited – Bernard v The Attorney General of Jamaica PC 7-Oct-2004
PC (Jamaica) The claimant had been queuing for some time to make an overseas phone call at the Post Office. Eventually his turn came, he picked up the phone and dialled. Suddenly a man intervened, announced . .
Applied – Jacobi v Griffiths 17-Jun-1999
(Canadian Supreme Court) The process for determining when a non-authorised act by an employee is so connected to the employer’s enterprise that liability should be imposed involved two steps: 1. Firstly a court should determine whether there are . .
Cited – Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co and Another (2) CA 16-Jan-2003
The claimant had been funded for a personal injury claim under legal aid. He appealed against a decision that he was not a ‘patient’ and that he had been fully capable of managing and administering his affairs for many years. He lost. The . .
Cited – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Cited – Bazley v Curry 17-Jun-1999
(Canadian Supreme Court) The court considerd the doctrine of vicarious liability: ‘The policy purposes underlying the imposition of vicarious liability on employers are served only where the wrong is so connected with the employment that it can be . .
Appeal from – Maga v The Trustees of The Birmingham Archdiocese of The Roman Catholic Church QBD 22-Apr-2009
There was a sufficiently close connection between the employment of a priest at the church and the abuse which he inflicted on the claimant to render it fair and just to impose vicarious liability for the abuse on his employer, the Archdiocese. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Coulson v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd QBD 21-Dec-2011
coulson_NIQBD2011
The claimant had been employed by the defendant as editor of a newspaper. On leaving they entered into an agreement which the claimant said required the defendant to pay his legal costs in any action arising regarding his editorship. The defendant . .
Cited – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Vicarious Liability, Limitation

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.402951

The Koursk: CA 1924

The navigators of two ships had committed two separate torts or one tort in which they were both tortfeasors.
Held: Three situations were identified where A might be jointly liable with B for B’s tortious act. Where A was master and B servant; where A was principal and B agent; and where the two were concerned in a joint act done in pursuance of a common purpose: ‘Certain classes of persons seem clearly to be ‘joint tortfeasors’: The agent who commits a tort within the scope of his employment for his principal, and the principal; the servant who commits a tort in the course of his employment, and his master; two persons who agree on common action, in the course of, and to further which, one of them commits a tort. These seem clearly joint tortfeasors; there is one tort committed by one of them on behalf of, or in concert with another.’ and ‘I am of the opinion that the definition in Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, 7th ed., p59, is much nearer the correct view : ‘Persons are said to be joint tortfeasors when their respective shares in the commission of the tort are done in furtherance of a common design’ . . ‘but mere similarity of design on the part of independent actors, causing independent damage, is not enough; there must be concerted action to a common end.’

Scrutton LJ
[1924] P 140
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credits Guarantee Department HL 19-Feb-1999
The wrong of the servant or agent for which the master or principal is liable is one committed in the case of a servant in the course of his employment, and in the case of an agent in the course of his authority. It is fundamental to the whole . .
Cited – Brooke v Bool 1928
Volunteer Was Joint Tortfeasor
A and B set out together to investigate the source of a gas leak which was B’s direct concern alone. A had come with him to help. Because B was too old to carry out a particular task, A carried it out instead. The means of investigation was . .
Cited – Unilever Plc v Gillette (UK) Limited CA 1989
Unilever claimed infringement of its patent. The court was asked whether there was a good arguable case against the United States parent company of the existing defendant sufficient to justify the parent company to be joined as a defendant and to . .
Cited – MCA Records Inc and Another v Charly Records Ltd and others (No 5) CA 5-Oct-2001
The court discussed the personal liability of a director for torts committed by his company: ‘i) a director will not be treated as liable with the company as a joint tortfeasor if he does no more than carry out his constitutional role in the . .
Cited – CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc HL 12-May-1988
The plaintiffs as representatives sought to restrain Amstrad selling equipment with two cassette decks without taking precautions which would reasonably ensure that their copyrights would not be infringed by its users.
Held: Amstrad could only . .
Cited – Fish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd UK and Another AdCt 25-Jun-2012
The claimant company was engaged in tuna fish culture off shore to Malta. The defendant ship was owned by a charity which campaigned against breaches of animal preservation conventions. Fish were being transporting live blue fin tuna in towed . .
Cited – Sea Shepherd UK v Fish and Fish Ltd SC 4-Mar-2015
Accessory Liability in Tort
The court considered the concept of accessory liability in tort. Activists had caused damage to vessels of the respondent which was transporting live tuna in cages, and had caused considerable damage. The appellant company owned the ship from which . .
Cited – Fish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd Uk and Others CA 16-May-2013
The claimant company sought damages after their transport of live tuna was attacked by a protest group. They now appealed against a decision that the company owning the attacking ship was not liable as a joint tortfeasor.
Held: The appeal was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Torts – Other

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.183581

Brown v Robinson and Sentry: PC 14 Dec 2004

(Jamaica) The deceased claimant had been shot by a sentry employed by the respondent company. His estate appealed a finding that the sentry was not acting in the course of his employment.
Held: Older authorities had now been replaced by recent decisions of the House of Lords and Privy Council. The essential test remains that of close connection with the acts which the worker was employed to do. When one applies this test the employer was vicariously liable for the shooting and the judge was quite justified in so holding. The appeal was allowed, but the damages award was adjusted

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Clyde, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2004] UKPC 56
Bailii, PC
Commonwealth
Citing:
Cited – Radley v London Council 1909
. .
Cited – Vasey v Surrey Free Inns Plc CA 5-May-1995
The claimant had been refused entry to the nightclub and in a temper he had kicked the door and damaged glass in it. Employees of the defendants’ nightclub, two employed as doormen, pursued the group of whom the claimant was one, to a public car . .
Cited – Poland v Parr (John) and Sons CA 1926
A carter, who had handed over his wagon and was going home to his dinner, struck a boy whom he suspected, wrongly but on reasonable grounds, of stealing his master’s property.
Held: The master was responsible. A servant has implied authority, . .
Cited – Daniels v Whetstone Entertainments Ltd 1962
Allender, a steward at a dance hall, and employed to keep order, assaulted a customer inside the hall in the mistaken belief that he had previously been himself assaulted by the customer. Allender explicitly rejected his employer’s instructions to . .
Cited – Keppel Bus Co v Ahmad PC 20-May-1974
Singapore – The respondent, the plaintiff was a passenger in a bus belonging to the appellants. They employed as conductor of the bus the second defendant. The conductor treated an elderly lady passenger in a high-handed and rude fashion. The . .
Cited – 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 – Bernard v The Attorney General of Jamaica PC 7-Oct-2004
PC (Jamaica) The claimant had been queuing for some time to make an overseas phone call at the Post Office. Eventually his turn came, he picked up the phone and dialled. Suddenly a man intervened, announced . .
Cited – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Cited – ST v North Yorkshire County Council CA 14-Jul-1998
The court considered the liability of the respondent for sexual assaults committed by an employee teacher when taking students on school trips.
Held: The Local Authority was not vicariously liable for sexual assault committed by employee . .
Cited – McCann v Sheppard CA 1973
The injured plaintiff succeeded in his action for damages for personal injury. The defendants appealed the quantum of damage but before the appeal was heard the plaintiff died. The court was now asked to reduce the award because of the death.
Cited – The Attorney General v Hartwell PC 23-Feb-2004
PC (The British Virgin Islands) A police officer had taken the police revolver, and used it to shoot the claimant. It was alleged that the respondent police force were vicariously liable for his acts and also . .

Cited by:
Cited – Subiah v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 3-Nov-2008
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board considered the extent of damages for infringement of the claimant’s constitutional rights. He had been on board a bus. He complained when a policeman was allowed not to buy a ticket. The same constable arrested him as . .
Cited – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .
Cited – Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.220293

The Attorney General v Hartwell: PC 23 Feb 2004

PC (The British Virgin Islands) A police officer had taken the police revolver, and used it to shoot the claimant. It was alleged that the respondent police force were vicariously liable for his acts and also negligent in failing to dismiss the officer for earlier misbehaviour.
Held: The officer’s activities once off duty and having left the island had nothing to do with his duties as a police officer. ‘Negligence as a basis of liability is founded on the impersonal (‘objective’) standard of how a reasonable person should have acted in the circumstances. ‘ and ‘one of the necessary prerequisites for the existence of a duty of care is foresight that carelessness on the part of the defendant may cause damage of a particular kind to the plaintiff. ‘ In this case the gun and ammunition were available to the officer, though his use was unlawful. A duty of care existed ‘when entrusting a police officer with a gun the police authorities owe to the public at large a duty to take reasonable care to see the officer is a suitable person to be entrusted with such a dangerous weapon lest by any misuse of it he inflicts personal injury, whether accidentally or intentionally, on other persons. For this purpose no distinction is to be drawn between personal injuries inflicted in the course of police duties and personal injuries inflicted by a police officer using a police gun for his own ends. If this duty seems far-reaching in its scope it must be remembered that guns are dangerous weapons. The wide reach of the duty is proportionate to the gravity of the risks. ‘ Given the eariler compliants about the officers dishonesty and his carrying of knives and guns, that duty had been breached.

[2004] UKPC 12, Times 27-Feb-2004, Gazette 25-Mar-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1273, [2004] PIQR 27
PC, Bailii, PC
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . .
Cited – Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970
A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers.
Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use . .
Cited – Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council HL 24-May-2000
An abandoned boat had been left on its land and not removed by the council. Children tried to repair it, jacked it up, and a child was injured when it fell. It was argued for the boy, who now appealed dismissal of his claim by the Court of Appeal, . .
Cited – Bolton v Stone HL 10-May-1951
The plaintiff was injured by a prodigious and unprecedented hit of a cricket ball over a distance of 100 yards. He claimed damages in negligence.
Held: When looking at the duty of care the court should ask whether the risk was not so remote . .
Cited – Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Limited (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party); Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd HL 1987
The defendant acquired a semi derelict cinema with a view to later development of the site. A fire started by others spread to the pursuer’s adjoining property.
Held: The defendants were not liable in negligence. The intervention of a third . .
Doubted – Doughty v Turner Ltd CA 1964
The cover on a cauldron of exceedingly hot molten sodium cyanide was accidentally knocked into the cauldron and the plaintiff was damaged by the resultant explosion.
Held: The plaintiff’s claim failed. The defendant employer owed a duty of . .
Cited – Hughes v Lord Advocate HL 21-Feb-1963
The defendants had left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. A child climbed down the hole. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. It fell into the hole and caused an explosion. The child was burned. The . .
Cited – Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire HL 28-Apr-1987
No General ty of Care Owed by Police
The mother of a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper claimed in negligence against the police alleging that they had failed to satisfy their duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill to apprehend the perpetrator of the murders and to protect members . .
Cited – Dominion Natural Gas Co Ltd v Collins 1909
The defendants had installed a gas apparatus to provide natural gas on the premises of a railway company. They had installed a regulator to control the pressure and their men negligently made an escape-valve discharge into the building instead of . .
Cited – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Cited – Burfitt v A and E Kille 1939
A shopkeeper in Minehead sold a ‘blank cartridge pistol’ to a twelve year old boy. Later, when the boy fired the pistol in the air, the plaintiff was injured by a tiny piece of copper going into his eye.
Held: The duty of care was owed not . .

Cited by:
Cited – Brown v Robinson and Sentry PC 14-Dec-2004
(Jamaica) The deceased claimant had been shot by a sentry employed by the respondent company. His estate appealed a finding that the sentry was not acting in the course of his employment.
Held: Older authorities had now been replaced by recent . .
Cited – Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The deceased had suffered a head injury whilst working for the defendant. In addition to severe physical consequences he suffered post-traumatic stress, became more and more depressed, and then committed suicide six years later. The claimant . .
Cited – Mitchell and Another v Glasgow City Council HL 18-Feb-2009
(Scotland) The pursuers were the widow and daughter of a tenant of the respondent who had been violently killed by his neighbour. They said that the respondent, knowing of the neighbour’s violent behaviours had a duty of care to the deceased and . .
Cited – Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 8-Feb-2018
Limits to Police Exemption from Liability
The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence.
Held: Her appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police, Vicarious Liability, Negligence

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.193879

Ormrod v Crosville Motor Services Ltd: CA 2 Jan 1953

A friend drove the owner’s car from Birkenhead to Monte Carlo, carrying with him a suitcase belonging to the car owner, so that the two of them could go on holiday with the car in Switzerland. The basis of the finding of vicarious liability on the part of the car owner for the friend’s negligent driving was that the friend was driving the car partly for the owner’s purposes.
Denning LJ said: ‘The owner only escapes liability when he lends it or hires it to a third person to be used for purposes in which the owner has no interest or concern’.

Denning LJ
[1953] 1 WLR 1120, [1953] 2 All ER 753
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Ormrod v Crosville Motor Services Ltd QBD 1953
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Launchbury v Morgans HL 9-May-1972
The owner of a car appealed against a ruling that she was responsible for injury suffered by the three respondents who had been passengers in the car when it crashed. The owner had not been with them. The care was driven by her husband with her . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.278324

Racz v Home Office: HL 17 Dec 1993

The Home Office can be liable for the actions of prison officers which amounted to an official misfeasance. The principles of vicarious liability apply as much to misfeasance in public office as to other torts involving malice, knowledge or intention. Lord Jauncey said: ‘My Lords, in my view, striking out paragraph 6 of this claim could only be justified if the inevitable result of proof of the averments therein was that the unauthorised acts of the prison officers was so unconnected with their authorised duties as to be quite independent of and outside those duties’.
And ‘ the Court of Appeal were dealing with the question of mode of trial upon the basis that the claim in respect of misfeasance in public office would not proceed. However, the facts relevant to that claim are likely to be identical to those which will be considered under the remaining heads of claim and the issue of exemplary damages also falls to be considered under those heads of claim.’ However, there can be no false imprisonment of a prisoner who is lawfully confined under section 12(1) of the 1952 Act, and a restraint upon movement which is not in accordance with the Prison Rules 1964 does not give rise to a cause of action for either false imprisonment or breach of statutory duty.

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
Times 17-Dec-1993, Independent 17-Dec-1993, [1994] 2 WLR 23, [1994] 1 All ER 97, [1994] 2 AC 45
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Canadian Pacific Railway Co v Lockhart PC 1941
When considering the imposition of vicarious liability, ‘the first consideration is the ascertainment of what the servant is employed to do.’ (Lord Thankerton) and ‘It is clear that the master is responsible for acts actually authorised by him: for . .

Cited by:
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England HL 18-May-2000
The applicants alleged misfeasance against the Bank of England in respect of the regulation of a bank.
Held: The Bank could not be sued in negligence, but the tort of misfeasance required clear evidence of misdeeds. The action was now properly . .
Cited – 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 – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – Houchin v Lincolnshire Probation Trust QBD 9-Apr-2013
houchin_lincsPSQBD2013
The defendant sought to have the claim struck out. The prisoner said that the defendant’s probation officer had through misfeasance in public office arranged for his transfer back to secure conditions from open ones. The parole board panel had found . .
Cited – Elliott v Chief Constable of Wiltshire and Others ChD 20-Nov-1996
Vice-Chancellor was asked to consider whether to strike out a statement of claim based upon alleged misfeasance by a police officer in his public office. The allegation against the police officer was that he had deliberately and falsely supplied . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Prisons, Torts – Other

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.85636

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd: HL 1946

Employers Liability for Worker’s Negligence

A worker was injured by a negligently driven crane. The crane and Board’s driver were hired out to stevedores for loading work. The stevedores controlled the crane’s operations, but did not direct how the driver controlled the crane. The hire contract made the driver the employee of the defendant stevedores.
Held: The House upheld decisions that the Board, as the crane driver’s general employer, retained responsibility for his negligence.
Decisions of this kind depend on the particular facts and many factors may bear on the result. Considerations include: (a) the burden of showing that responsibility does not remain with the general employer is on the general employer and is a heavy one (b) by whom is the negligent employee engaged? Who pays him? Who has power to dismiss him? (c) who has the immediate direction and control of the relevant work? Who is entitled to tell the employee the way in which he is to do the work upon which he is engaged? ‘The proper test is whether or not the hirer had authority to control the manner of execution of the act in question. Given the existence of that authority its exercise or non-exercise on the occasion of the doing the act is irrelevant’. (d) the inquiry should concentrate on the relevant negligent act, and then ask whose responsibility it was to prevent it. In the Mersey Docks case, the stevedores had no responsibility for the way in which the crane driver drove his crane, and it was this which caused the accident. The ultimate question may be, not what specific orders or whether any specific orders were given, but who is entitled to give the orders as to how the work should be done. (e) a transfer of services can only be effected with the employee’s consent. (f) responsibility should lie with the master in whose act some degree of fault, though remote, may be found
Viscount Simon said that a heavy burden of proof lay on the general or permanent employer to shift responsibility for the negligence of servants engaged and paid by such employer to the hirer for the time being who had the benefit of the services rendered. This could only be achieved where the hirer enjoyed the right to ‘control the way in which the act involving negligence was done.’

Lord Porter, Lord Simon, Lord MacMillan, Lord Uthwatt
[1946] 2 All ER 345, [1946] UKHL 1, [1947] AC 1
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Denham v Midland Employers’ Mutual Assurance Limited CA 1955
The court was asked which of two mutually exclusive liability insurance policies covered damages which an employer was liable to pay to the widow of an employee, who was killed while he was working under the specific direction of engineers engaged . .
Cited – Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd and others CA 10-Oct-2005
The defendants had subcontracted work installing air conditioning to the second defendants, who in turn bought in fitters from the third defendants. A fitter caused a flood acting irresponsibly.
Held: The court reviewed the law of vicarious . .
Cited – Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd and others CA 24-Jan-2006
The claimant was assaulted and severely injured at a night club by a doorman supplied to the club by a third party company now in liquidation. He claimed the club was the ‘temporary deemed employer’ of the doorman. He also sought to claim under the . .
Cited – Biffa Waste Services Ltd and Another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese Gmbh and others CA 12-Nov-2008
The defendant contracted to build a plant for the claimant. The plant was damaged by a fire caused by the defendant’s independent sub-contractor. The defendant appealed against the finding that it was responsible for the sub-contractor’s failure. . .
Cited – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .
Cited – JGE v The Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust CA 12-Jul-2012
The claimant suffered physical and serious sexual abuse whilst a child at a children’s home run by the defendant. A parish priest committed some of the abuse, and she claimed that the defendants were vicariously liable. They denied such liability. . .
Cited – Hawley v Luminar Leisure Plc and Others QBD 10-Jan-2005
The claimant had been assaulted by a doorman at a club operated by the defendants. The doorman was supplied by a security company, which was now in liquidation. The insolvent company’s insurers had declined indemnity. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.190029

Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust: HL 12 Jul 2006

Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment

The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying that the intention of the Act was to protect against stalkers, and that this was not such a situation, and that an unnecessarily large burden would face employers if liability was accepted.
Held: The employer was liable. The Act created rights, including a right to damages, and despite setting out other features of the tort, did not exclude vicarious liability. The fact that other defences might be available to other complaints was of little assistance in interpreting these provisions. That the corresponding provision for Scotland imposed explicit vicarious liability by section 10 was a clearer indication of Parliament’s intent. Baroness Hale said: ‘floodgates arguments may assist the courts in deciding how to develop the principles of the common law. They are of little help to us in construing the language which Parliament has used.’
Lord Nicholls said: ‘A precondition of vicarious liability is that the wrong must be committed in the course of his employment’, that ‘A wrong is committed in the course of employment only if the conduct is so closely connected with acts the employee is authorised to do that for the purposes of the liability of the employer to third parties the wrongful conduct may fairly and properly be regarded as done by the employee while acting in the course of his employment’, and that ‘The rationale underlying the principle holds good for a wrong comprising a breach of statutory duty or prohibition which gives rise to civil liability provided always that the statute does not expressly or impliedly indicate otherwise’.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2006] UKHL 34, Times 13-Jul-2006, [2006] 4 All ER 395, (2006) 91 BMLR 85, [2006] ICR 1199, [2006] 3 WLR 125, [2007] 1 AC 224, [2006] IRLR 695
Bailii
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – Harrison v National Coal Board HL 1951
The plaintiff sought damages from his employer after suffering injury when a co-worker fired a shot in the colliery, acting in breach of the regulations.
Held: There was no vicarious liability duty in law on the managers to ensure compliance . .
Cited – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Cited – 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 – Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell HL 6-Jul-1964
The respondent was employed as a shot firer in a quarry, and was to test the electric wiring connecting explosive charges. Contrary to instructions that testing must be done from a shelter, the respondent and another shot firer carried out a test in . .
Cited – Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co v Long 1957
(High Court of Australia) An employer was not responsible vicariously for a breach of a duty at common law between one emplyee and another. There could be no vicarious liability on an employer under regulations providing precautions to be observed . .
Cited – Staveley Iron and Chemical Co Ltd v Jones HL 1956
The court must avoid treating every risky act by an employee due to familiarity with the work or some inattention resulting from noise or strain as contributory negligence: ‘ . . in Factory Act cases the purpose of imposing the absolute obligation . .
Cited – Nicol v National Coal Board SCS 1952
The court considered a claim against his employer after the plaintiff suffered injury after a breach of safety regulations by a co-worker.
Held: Referring to Harrison v NCB: ‘It appears to me that that principle disposes of the argument . .
Cited – MacMillan v Wimpey Offshore Engineers and Constructors Ltd 1991
. .
Cited – National Coal Board v England HL 1954
The plaintiff sought damages after being injured when a co-worker fired a shot. The employee however had himself coupled the detonator to the cable rather than leaving it to the shotfirer, and had his cimmitted a criminal offence. He had been found . .
Cited – Matuszczyk v National Coal Board 1953
The pursuer sought damages at common law after being injured by a shot-firing by a co-worker. The pursuer based his case on duties said to be owed to him by the shot-firer at common law. The defenders’ argument was that these duties had been . .
Cited – Bernard v The Attorney General of Jamaica PC 7-Oct-2004
PC (Jamaica) The claimant had been queuing for some time to make an overseas phone call at the Post Office. Eventually his turn came, he picked up the phone and dialled. Suddenly a man intervened, announced . .
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 . .
Cited – McGlennan v McKinnon 1998
. .
Cited – Mccann Or Mcgurran Known As Mccann v Mcgurran SCS 14-Mar-2002
. .
Cited – McGuire v Kidston ScSf 2002
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Cumbria County Council v Carlisle-Morgan EAT 29-Jan-2007
EAT A employed R as a support worker. R made a number of protected disclosures relating to a fellow worker’s conduct towards a client. The ET held various detriments were suffered by R on the ground of the . .
Cited – Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd CA 2-Dec-2009
The claimant alleged that her manager at work had harassed her. The court, applying Conn, had found that none of the acts complained of were sufficiently serious to amount to criminal conduct, and had rejected the claim.
Held: The claimant’s . .
Cited – Rayment v Ministry of Defence QBD 18-Feb-2010
The claimant sought damages alleging harassment by officers employed by the defendant. An internal investigation had revealed considerable poor behaviour by the senior officers, and that was followed by hostile behaviour. The defendant had put up . .
Cited – Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd CA 10-Feb-2009
Harassment to Criminal Level needed to Convict
The claimant had been a customer of the defendant, but had moved to another supplier. She was then subjected to a constant stream of threatening letters which she could not stop despite re-assurances and complaints. The defendant now appealed . .
Cited – Fecitt and Others v NHS Manchester EAT 23-Nov-2010
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
S.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that ‘A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate . .
Cited – Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors CA 15-Feb-2011
The claimant sought protection under the Act from his former employers’ behaviour in making repeated allegations against him. He appealed against the striking out of his claim.
Held: The appeal suceeded. The matter should go to trial. The . .
Cited – Jones and Another v Ruth and Another CA 12-Jul-2011
The parties were neighbours. The claimants succeeded in their assertion of trespass and nuisance in building works carried out by the defendant. The claimant appealed against the judge’s failure to award damages for harassment, saying that though . .
Cited – Hayes v Willoughby CA 13-Dec-2011
Harassment Occurs on the Result, not the Intention
The claimant said that over several years, the respondent had pursued him in many ways challenging his management of a company’s affairs. Complaints had been investigated by the insolvency service and by the police who had discovered nothing to . .
Cited – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .
Cited – Hayes v Willoughby SC 20-Mar-2013
The claimant and appellant had been employer and employee who had fallen out, with a settlement in 2005. The appellant then began an unpleasant and obsessive personal vendetta against Mr Hayes, complaining to public bodies with allegations of tax . .
Cited – NHS Manchester v Fecitt and Others CA 25-Oct-2011
The appellant challenged reversal by the EAT of a finding that it had not unlawfully victimised the respondents for the making of a protected disclosure. The claimant had reported a co-worker exaggerating his qualifications. After repeated . .
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
Cited – Boylin v The Christie NHS Foundation QBD 17-Oct-2014
The claimant a senior employee manager complained of harassment and common law negligence causing her injury.
Held: The claim failed. Behaviour of the level required to found a claim under the 1997 Act was established, but only on one occaion . .
Cited – Evans v Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust QBD 8-Oct-2014
The court was asked whether a party who requires the court’s permission to withdraw a Part 36 offer may be granted such permission on the basis of information and for reasons not disclosed to the party to whom the offer was made.
Held: The . .
Cited – Calland v Financial Conduct Authority CA 13-Mar-2015
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his claim of harassment against the Authority who had contacted him in an intended review of pensions mis-selling. They had contacted him once by letter, once by telephone and once by e-mail.
Cited – Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .
Cited – Gerrard and Another v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd and Another QBD 27-Nov-2020
The claimants, a solicitor and his wife, sought damages in harassment and data protection, against a party to proceedings in which he was acting professionally, and against the investigative firm instructed by them. The defendants now requested the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Vicarious Liability

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.243081

Brink’s Global Services Inc and Others v Igrox Ltd and Another: CA 27 Oct 2010

There was a sufficiently close connection between an employee’s theft of silver from a customer’s container and the purpose of his employment to make it fair and just that his employer be held vicariously liable for his actions. Moore-Bick LJ said: ‘Whatever may have been the position in the past, the decisions in Lister v Hesley Hall, Dubai Aluminium v Salaam and the cases which have followed them have established that the test involves evaluating the closeness of the connection between the tort and the purposes for which the tortfeasor was employed. While all the circumstances have to be taken into account, the authorities support the view that when making that evaluation it is appropriate to consider whether the wrongful act can fairly be regarded as a risk reasonably incidental to the purpose for which the tortfeasor was employed.’

Longmore, Moore-Bick, Wilson LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1207, [2011] IRLR 343
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Coulson v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd QBD 21-Dec-2011
coulson_NIQBD2011
The claimant had been employed by the defendant as editor of a newspaper. On leaving they entered into an agreement which the claimant said required the defendant to pay his legal costs in any action arising regarding his editorship. The defendant . .
Cited – Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd CA 24-Jan-2012
Parties appealed against judgments dismissing their claims of vicarious liability as against their employers after assaults by co-employees.
Held: Appeals were dismissed and allowed according to their facts.
In one case, one employee . .
Cited – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.425583

Rose v Plenty: CA 7 Jul 1975

Contrary to his employers orders, a milkman allowed children to assist him in his milkround. One was injured, and sued the milkman’s employer.
Held: The milkman had not gone so far outside the activities for which he was employed for the employer to escape liability. Lord Scarman said: ‘In words which have frequently been quoted both in the courts and in the universities, Salmond on Torts, 16th ed (1973), p 462, refers to the basis of vicarious liability for accidental damage as being one of public policy. That view is supported by quotations (dated no doubt, but still full of life) of a dictum of Lord Brougham and of another, 100 years or more earlier, of Sir John Holt. That it is ‘socially convenient and rough justice’ to make an employer liable for the torts of his servant in the cases to which the principle applies, was recognised in Limpus v London General Omnibus Co, 1 H and C 526; see the judgment of Willes J at p 539. I think it important to realise that the principle of vicarious liability is one of public policy. It is not a principle which derives from a critical or refined consideration of other concepts in the common law, for example, the concept of trespass or indeed the concept of agency. No doubt in particular cases it may be relevant to consider whether a particular plaintiff was or was not a trespasser. Similarly, when, as I shall indicate, it is important that one should determine the course of employment of the servant, the law of agency may have some marginal relevance. But basically, as I understand it, the employer is made vicariously liable for the tort of his employee not because the plaintiff is an invitee, nor because of the authority possessed by the servant, but because it is a case in which the employer, having put matters into motion, should be liable if the motion which he has originated leads to damage to another. What is the approach which the cases identify as the correct approach in order to determine this question of public policy? First, . . one looks to see whether the servant has committed a tort upon the plaintiff . . The next question . . is whether the employer should shoulder the liability for compensating the person injured by the tort . . [I]t does appear to me to be clear, since the decision of Limpus v London General Omnibus Co, 1 H and C 526, that that question has to be answered by directing attention to what the servant was employed to do when he committed the tort that has caused damage to the plaintiff. The servant was, of course, employed at the time of the accident to do a whole number of operations. He was certainly not employed to give the boy a lift, and if one confines one’s analysis of the facts to the incident of injury to the plaintiff, then no doubt one would say that carrying the boy on the float – giving him a lift – was not in the course of the servant’s employment.’ After referring to Ilkiw. ‘he was employed as a roundsman to drive his float round his round and to deliver milk, to collect empties and to obtain payment. That was his job. . . He chose to disregard the prohibition and to enlist the assistance of the plaintiff. As a matter of common sense, that does seem to me to be a mode, albeit a prohibited mode, of doing the job with which he was entrusted. Why was the plaintiff being carried on the float when the accident occurred? Because it was necessary to take him from point to point so that he could assist in delivering milk, collecting empties and, on occasions obtaining payment.’
(Lawton LJ dissenting)

Scarman LJ, Lord Denning MR,
[1976] 1 WLR 141, [1975] EWCA Civ 5, [1976] 1 All ER 97, [1975] ICR 430
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Canadian Pacific Railway Co v Lockhart PC 1941
When considering the imposition of vicarious liability, ‘the first consideration is the ascertainment of what the servant is employed to do.’ (Lord Thankerton) and ‘It is clear that the master is responsible for acts actually authorised by him: for . .
Cited – Limpus v London General Omnibus Company CExC 23-Jun-1862
Vicarious Liability – Act on Employers Business
The driver of an omnibus, seeking to disturb the omnibus of another company, drove his own across the path of another. His employers had furnished him and other drivers with a card saying they ‘must not on any account race with or obstruct another . .
Not Followed – Twine v Bean’s Eypress Ltd CA 1946
A driver was engaged to drive his employers’ van, his employers having a contract with the Post Office. When so doing, he gave Mr. Twine a lift from A to B, both offices of the Post Office. The driver had been expressly forbidden to give lifts.
Not Followed – Conway v George Wimpey and Co Ltd CA 1951
A number of contractors were employed in work at the Heathrow Airport. The defendant company had instituted a bus service for their own employees and the driver was prohibited by the defendant company from giving lifts to anyone other than their own . .
Cited – Harris v Birkenhead Corporation CA 12-Nov-1975
A four year old child had fallen from a second-story window in a derelict house owned by the defendant, and suffered serious injury. The house and others had been purchased by compulsion for intended clearance. The Corporation appealed against a . .
Cited – Young v Edward Box and Co Ltd CA 1951
A lorry driver employed by a firm of contractors on a site where many other contractors were working, contrary to his express instructions, gave an employee of another firm of contractors a lift in his lorry. The passenger was injured and sought to . .
Cited – Southern Portland Cement Ltd v Cooper PC 1974
Since the duty of an occupier towards a trespasser was based not on the relationship forced upon him but on consideration of humanity, the occupier’s duty only arose if he had knowledge of or had created the danger on his land; that no unreasonable . .
Cited – Ilkiw v Samuels CA 1963
The plaintiff was injured by the careless manouvering of a lorry by the defendant’s employee.
Held: When considering the vicarious liability of an employer, the proper approach to the nature of the servant’s employment is a broad one. . .
Cited – Hern v Nichols 1700
The plaintiff brought an action on the case for deceit, alleging that he bought several parcels of silk under a fraudulent representation by the defendant’s factor that it was another kind of silk. The factor was operating overseas and there was no . .
Cited – Iqbal v London Transport Executive CA 6-Jun-1973
The court was asked whether the London Transport Executive was liable for the action of a bus conductor in driving contrary to his express instructions a motor bus a short distance in a garage.
Held: The instruction acted as a prohibition . .
Cited – Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd 1961
. .
Cited – Plumb v Cobden Flour Mills Co Ltd HL 1914
In looking at restrictions by an employer to limit his vicarious liability, the court must distinguish between prohibitions which limit the sphere of employment and those which only deal with conduct within the sphere of employment:’ ‘there are . .

Cited by:
Cited – 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 – 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 . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – Hunter v Department for Regional Development for Northern Ireland QBNI 5-Sep-2008
. .
Cited – Barings Plc and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and Others ChD 11-Jun-2003
Evans-Lombe J expressed an unwillingness to accept any all-embracing test for what may constitute the breaking of the chain of causation, saying: ‘It seems to me that what will constitute such conduct is so fact-sensitive to the facts of any case . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council, Regina (on the Application of) v The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Admn 17-Jun-2005
. .
Cited – A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .
Cited – Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.214667

Harrison v National Coal Board: HL 1951

The plaintiff sought damages from his employer after suffering injury when a co-worker fired a shot in the colliery, acting in breach of the regulations.
Held: There was no vicarious liability duty in law on the managers to ensure compliance by their workers to the regulations.
Lord MacDermott (obiter) said: ‘The fireman in doing his work as a shot-firer was acting in the course of his employment by the defenders. In the performance of his work he was required by the regulations to adopt certain precautions which Parliament had prescribed for the safety of those employed in coal mines. But it is not correct to say that he was not acting for his master. The firing of the shots was the work which he was employed by the defenders to do. His failure to take the precautions which Parliament has required of him did not take him outwith the scope of his employment. Accordingly, his acts were still within the area in which the vicarious responsibility of a master operates.’
Vicarious liability was not confined to common law negligence: ‘It arises from the servant’s tortious act in the scope of his employment and there can be no doubt that [the servant] in breaking the shot-firing regulations committed a tort.’
Lord MacDermott: ‘Vicarious liability is not confined to common law negligence. It arises from the servant’s tortious act in the scope of his employment and there can now be no doubt that [the employee] breaking the shot-firing regulations committed a tort.’
Lord Porter said that the Factories Act is ‘a remedial measure passed for the protection of the workmen [which] must, therefore, be read so as to effect its object so far as the wording fairly and reasonably permits’.

Lord MacDermott, Lord Porter
[1951] AC 639, [1951] 1 TLR 1079, [1951] 95 Sol Jo 413, [1951] 1 All ER 1102
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Nicol v National Coal Board SCS 1952
The court considered a claim against his employer after the plaintiff suffered injury after a breach of safety regulations by a co-worker.
Held: Referring to Harrison v NCB: ‘It appears to me that that principle disposes of the argument . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment
The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
Cited – McDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc SC 22-Oct-2014
Contact visiting plants supported asbestos claim
The deceased had worked as a lorry driver regularly collecting pulverized fuel ash from a power station. On his visits he was at areas with asbestos dust. He came to die from mesothelioma. His widow now pursued his claim that the respondent had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Vicarious Liability, Health and Safety

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.241425

General Engineering Services v Kingston and Saint Andrew Corporation: PC 21 Nov 1988

There was a fire at the petitioner’s premises. The firemen, employed by the respondent, were in an industrial dispute and drove to the fire slowly. One was said to have commented: ‘we are on a go-slow and even if my mother was in there, it would have to burn down. I want my raise of pay’. The company claimed damages.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed. The respondent was not vicariously liable. The actions of the firemen were not a way of perfuming an authorised act.

Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Sir John Stephenson
[1988] 3 All ER 867, [1988] UKPC 26, [1988] UKPC 2, [1989] IRLR 35, [1989] 1 WLR 69, [1989] ICR 88
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Vicarious Liability

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.188843

Woodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others: QBD 17 Oct 2011

The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children during school time. The pool supervision wasthrough employees of a company sub-contracting to the local authority providing the lessons.
Held: The claim failed. There were fundamental differences between vicarious liability and the finding of a non-delegable duty. Such duties had been found in a hospital situation, but not otherwise. Whilst a non-delegable duty on a school might arise in certain circumstances, one did not arise in this case. ‘To recognise a duty as arguable in the present case would thus be that marked extension of the common law which policy tends against. Even greater caution should apply to recognition of new categories of non-delegable duty than does to an expansion of negligence liability, since to recognise an intermediate category between strict insurance against injury and negligence itself is to suggest that the scope of the latter, though augmented by the principles of vicarious liability, is insufficient, even if gently extended, to meet the demands of that which is fair just and reasonable in the circumstances.’

Langstaff J
[2011] EWHC 2631 (QB), [2012] PIQR P3, [2012] ELR 76
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd HL 1959
The employer provided an employee with a simple metal tool, a drift, with no apparent defect, which had, in fact, been manufactured to excessive hardness, as the result of negligent heat treatment by the otherwise reputable manufacturer. That was a . .
Cited – Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning Co CA 24-Apr-1958
Pearce LJ said that if an employer sends an employee to work, ‘for instance in a respectable private house’, he could not be held negligent for not visiting the house himself ‘to see if the carpet in the hall created a trap’. . .
Cited – Brown v Nelson and others 1971
A pupil at an approved school went on an Outward Bound course including riding on a cable and pulley slung between two trees. From the cable hung a knotted rope. When the pupil got onto the rope the cable snapped, and he fell with it. He suffered . .
Cited – D and F Estates v Church Commissioners for England HL 14-Jul-1988
The House considered the liability of main contractors on a construction site for the negligence of it sub-contractors.
Lord Bridge said: ‘It is trite law that the employer of an independent contractor is, in general, not liable for the . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – A v Ministry of Defence; Re A (A Child) CA 7-May-2004
The wife of a British Army soldier serving in Germany delivered a premature baby, ‘A’, with a German obstetrician in a German hospital. A suffered brain damage in the birth as a result of the obstetrician’s negligence. The mother claimed against the . .
Cited – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English HL 19-Jul-1937
The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . .
Cited – Gold v Essex County Council CA 1942
The hospital was held accountable for an injury caused by negligence of an employee radiographer. The main issue was whether the authority could be vicariously liable even for employees in cases where their employment called for the exercise of . .
Cited – Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA 13-Nov-2009
The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .
Cited – Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis HL 17-Feb-1955
The House considered the unexplained fact that in the temporary absence of the teacher (who, on the evidence, was not negligent) it was possible for a child of four to wander from the school premises onto the highway, through a gate which was either . .
Cited – Commonwealth v Introvigne 1982
(High Court of Australia) A pupil was injured when he swung, whilst skylarking unsupervised, from a halyard attached to a flagpole in the school quadrangle. The halyard was in turn connected to a pulley which was part of a truck attached to the top . .
Doubted – M v Calderdale and Kirklees Health Authority 1998
(Huddersfield County Court) . .
Mentioned – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital 1989
(Court of Appeal of New South Wales) Samuels JA discussed the circumstances in which a non-delegable duty of care arises: ‘It arises from a relationship which combines the dependence of A upon the reasonable care, skill and judgment of B with the . .
Cited – Camkin v Bishop CA 1941
The Court heard an appeal by the school from a finding of liability where boys from the school were allowed to help a farmer by working in a field, unsupervised, and one of them was struck so badly in the eye by a clod of earth thrown amongst them . .
Cited – Fitzgerald v Hill 16-Sep-2008
(Supreme Court of Queensland – Court of Appeal) TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – OTHER CASES – plaintiff child was a member of a tae kwon do academy in Townsville – class . .
Cited – AM v Reverend Joseph Hendron and others OHCS 13-Sep-2005
Serious abuse was said to have been inflicted by monks of the De La Salle order on those in their charge at an approved school in Scotland. The former pupil claimant contended that the SED owed him a non-delegable duty which entitled him to . .
Cited – Kondis v State Transport Authority 16-Oct-1984
(High Court of Australia) Mason J discussed the concept of the personal duty which Lord Wright expounded in Wilson and said that it made it impossible to draw a convincing distinction between the delegation of performance of the employer’s duty to . .
Cited – KLB v British Columbia 2-Oct-2003
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Torts – Liability – Intentional torts – Abuse of children by foster parents – Whether government can be held liable for harm children suffered in foster care – Whether government . .
Cited – New South Wales v Lepore 6-Feb-2003
Austlii (High Court of Australia) 1. Appeal allowed in part
2. Paragraph 2 of the order of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales made on 23 April 2001 set aside, and in its place, order that the judgment . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Woodland v Essex County Council CA 9-Mar-2012
The claimant had been injured in a swimming pool during a lesson. The lesson was conducted by outside independent contractors. The claimant appealed against a finding that his argument that they had a non-delegable duty of care was bound to fail. . .
At QBD – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Education

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.445490

Smith v Skanska Construction Services Ltd: QBD 29 Jul 2008

The court considered whether the driver of a vehicle involved in a fatal road accident in Thailand was driving within the authority of the UK employers. The driver was not an employee but had authority to use company vehicles for tasks for the company. He had previously been banned from driving such vehicles but that ban had been relaxed subject to conditions preventing him driving alone or at night. The accident occurred when the driver took people home from the christmas staff party.
Held: The Thai civil code required two elements for vicarious liability each of which was satisfied. In this respect the Thai law did not differ from UK law. It had not been shown that the driver had taken the car with the authority of the company, and it was not vicariously liable. Nor could the company be said to have given retrospective authority by the way it had handled its insurance claim, or to have ratified the tort. The claimant was solely responsible for authorising the driver to take the car and the defendant was not liable.

Ouseley J
[2008] EWHC 1776 (QB)
Bailii
Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Crouch v Hooper 1852
Sir John Romilly MR discussed the possibility of a witness being honest but mistaken: ‘it must always be borne in mind . . how extremely prone persons are to believe what they wish. And where persons are once persuaded of the truth of such a fact, . .
Cited – Banque des Marchands de Moscou (Koupetschesky) v Kindersley CA 1951
Sir Raymond Evershed MR discussed the need to keep the doctrine against approbation and reprobation within limits. . .
Cited – Express Newspapers v News (UK) plc 1990
If summary judgment is given to one party on his claim, it must also be given on a counterclaim made on the same basis by the defendant. The principle that a party to litigation cannot ‘approbate and reprobate’ (or ‘blow hot and cold’) can curtail a . .
Cited – Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd HL 25-Jun-1953
Plaintiff to take own responsibility for damage
The question was whether the fault of the deceased’s fellow workman, they both having disobeyed their foreman’s instructions, was to be regarded as having contributed to the accident.
Held: A plaintiff must ‘share in the responsibility for the . .
Cited – First National Bank Plc v Walker and Another CA 23-Nov-2000
A claim that a bank’s charge should be set aside as having been obtained by the undue influence of a co-mortgagee was parasitic upon a claim as between the co-mortgagors in family proceedings. The wife sought as against the bank to challenge the . .
Cited – PW and Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd (BT Property Ltd and another, Part 20 defendants) ChD 8-Aug-2003
The parties, head lessor and sub-lessess, had assumed that following Brown -v- Wilson the sub-lease would continue upon the determination of the head lease, and had overlooked Pennell which overruled Brown v Wilson. However the lease made express . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.271313

Mattis v Pollock (T/A Flamingo’s Nightclub): CA 1 Jul 2003

A nightclub employed an unlicensed bouncer/doorman. After an altercation in and outside the club, he went home, and returned armed and seriously assaulted the customer.
Held: The club had vicarious liability for his acts. There was a sufficient connection as to the time location and nature of his acts to create liability.

[2003] EWCA Civ 887, [2003] 1 WLR 2158, [2003] IRLR 603, [2004] PIQR P3, [2003] ICR 1335, [2004] 4 All ER 85
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Cited – 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 – Gravil v Carroll and Another CA 18-Jun-2008
The claimant was injured by an unlawful punch thrown by the first defendant when they played rugby. He sought damages also against the defendant’s club, and now appealed from a finding that they were not vicariously liable. The defendant player’s . .
Cited – Graham v Commercial Bodyworks Ltd CA 5-Feb-2015
The claimant had been very badly burned. He was covered in flammable liquid when a co-worker lit a cigarette.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. ‘although the defendant employers did create a risk by requiring their employees to work with . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Torts – Other, Vicarious Liability

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.184262

Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd: CA 24 Jan 2012

Parties appealed against judgments dismissing their claims of vicarious liability as against their employers after assaults by co-employees.
Held: Appeals were dismissed and allowed according to their facts.
In one case, one employee made a call out of hours to another employee (Mr Marsh) requesting him to do a voluntary shift to replace a sick employee. Mr Marsh, who had a history of antagonism with the first employee (Mr Weddall), was at home in an inebriated state having had a domestic row. He declined to come; instead he bicycled to the care home and launched an unprovoked attack on Mr Weddall. The employer was held not to be vicariously liable.
In another case, Mr Wallbank was at work in the normal way and was somewhat curt with a co-employee when indicating that he needed help with loading bed frames onto a conveyor belt. There was some minor history of difficulty between them but on this occasion the co-employee lost his temper and threw Mr Wallbank 12 feet across the factory floor onto a table. The employer was in that case held to be vicariously liable because the possibility of friction is inherent in any employment relationship, particularly in a factory where instant instructions and quick reactions were required.
Moore-Bick LJ said that there is now: ‘a more flexible principle governing the imposition of vicarious liability, which, in the case of wrongdoing by employees, turns on the closeness of the connection between the wrongful act and the employment. The principle is expressed in broad terms and since the factual circumstances of cases in which the imposition of vicarious liability falls to be considered differ widely, it is not surprising that one can find in the authorities different explanations of the factors which justify holding the defendant liable.’
In Wallbank (heard at the same time), a factory manager who gave an employee instructions was violently assaulted. The court held that the close connection test was satisfied since the possibility of friction is inherent in any employment relationship, but particularly one in a factory, where instant instructions and quick reactions are required. The risk of an over-robust reaction to an instruction was a risk created by the employment.

Pill, Moore-Bick, Aikens LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 25, [2012] IRLR 307
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Gravil v Carroll and Another CA 18-Jun-2008
The claimant was injured by an unlawful punch thrown by the first defendant when they played rugby. He sought damages also against the defendant’s club, and now appealed from a finding that they were not vicariously liable. The defendant player’s . .
Cited – 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 – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Cited – Fennelly v Connex South Eastern Ltd CA 11-Dec-2000
A ticket inspector, following an altercation with a passenger during which strong words were exchanged, had held the passenger in a headlock. The court had found this to be within the course of his employment so as to make the employer vicariously . .
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 . .
Cited – Aldred v Nacanco Limited CA 27-Mar-1987
Several women were in the washroom provided by the employers at their factory. One decided to startle another by giving the wash basin a push, as a result of which the claimant twisted her back.
Held: Lawton LJ, with whom Sir John Donaldson MR . .
Cited – Brink’s Global Services Inc and Others v Igrox Ltd and Another CA 27-Oct-2010
There was a sufficiently close connection between an employee’s theft of silver from a customer’s container and the purpose of his employment to make it fair and just that his employer be held vicariously liable for his actions. Moore-Bick LJ said: . .
Cited – Bazley v Curry 17-Jun-1999
(Canadian Supreme Court) The court considerd the doctrine of vicarious liability: ‘The policy purposes underlying the imposition of vicarious liability on employers are served only where the wrong is so connected with the employment that it can be . .
Cited – Wilson v Exel UK Ltd SCS 29-Apr-2010
A supervisor in a depot was entrusted to implement the employers’ health and safety policies. In a prank, he forcefully pulled an employee’s head back by her hair.
Held: The pursuer’s appeal against rejection of the claim based upon vicarious . .
Cited – Bernard v The Attorney General of Jamaica PC 7-Oct-2004
PC (Jamaica) The claimant had been queuing for some time to make an overseas phone call at the Post Office. Eventually his turn came, he picked up the phone and dialled. Suddenly a man intervened, announced . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Personal Injury, Torts – Other

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.450467

Craik, Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates’ Court: Admn 30 Apr 2010

The claimant a retired Chief Constable sought judicial review of a decision to commit him for trial on a charge of unlawful imprisonment. The suspect and now prosecutor had been arrested and held in custody, but without the necessary timely review by the defendant’s officers. He now pursued a private prosecution.
Held: The review was granted. The issue of a summons involves the exercise of a judicial discretion. The use of proceedings to satisfy an ulterior motive can amount to an abuse, which can be stayed at a later point. In this case there was no evidence of the Chief Constable’s personal involvement at any stage in or near the actions complained of. There is, in general, no doctrine of criminal vicarious liability at common law. This case did not fall with any of the three exceptions. ‘[T]o pursue, a case which was . . hopelessly misconceived, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court, is to be guilty of the kind of serious misconduct which amply merits, indeed requires, the exercise by the Magistrates’ Court of its power to stay proceedings as an abuse of the process.’

Munby LJ, Keith J
[2010] EWHC 935 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin 1975
A decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to information laid involves the exercise of a judicial function, and is not merely administrative. A summons (or warrant) is merely machinery for giving a defendant notice of the . .
Cited – London Borough of Newham, Regina (on the Application of) v Stratford Magistrates’ Court Admn 12-Oct-2004
. .
Cited – Regina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
Cited – Roberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary CA 26-Jan-1999
The claimant had been detained at 11.25pm. His detention was not reviewed by an inspector until 7.45am the next morning, although it had been considered in the interim at 1.45am by an officer of junior rank. The plaintiff sued for unlawful . .
Cited – Regina v Rahman CACD 1985
False imprisonment is a common law offence, defined as consisting in ‘the unlawful and intentional or reckless restraint of a victim’s freedom of movement from a particular place. In other words it is unlawful detention which stops the victim moving . .
Cited – Regina v Stephens 1866
The court was asked whether the owner of a slate quarry was answerable for a public nuisance caused by his workmen without his knowledge and contrary to his general orders.
Held: Mellor J: ‘It is quite true that this in point of form is a . .
Cited – Regina (on the Applications of Salubi and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 10-May-2002
The several applicants had been accused of offences under which the cases were to be transferred direct to the Crown Court for trial. The charges were later amended, with alternative offences preferred for which similar procedures might be and were . .
Cited – Regina v Hutchins CACD 1988
The defendant was at a party where he took a range of drugs. He was accused of attacking one girl, and then imprisoning another with a neighbour. He appealed against his convictions for unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Rex v Huggins and Barnes KBD 1730
Gaoler – Murder of Prisoner by Lack of Care
The defendant Huggins was warden of the Fleet Prison. A prisoner, Arne, died in 1725. Barnes, a gaoler had put him in a room ‘without fire, chamber-pot or close-stool, the walls being damp and unwholesome, and the room built over the common sewer’. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Vicarious Liability, Magistrates

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.408832

Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc v Various Claimants: CA 22 Oct 2018

Co vicariously liable for employee’s data breach

A member of the company’s staff had unlawfully disclosed personal details of many company employees. The data consisted of personal information of the defendant’s employees including their names, addresses, gender, dates of birth, phone numbers, national insurance numbers, bank sort codes, bank account numbers and salaries. He copied it to an Internet file sharing system with intention of causing harm to the company. Employees sought damages from the company, which denied vicarious responsibility for the employees actions.
Held: The company’s appeal failed. The Act was silent as to vicarious liability, but concessions by the company that causes of action based upon misuse of private information, and breach of confidentiality had not been displaced by the Act made it inevitable that nether was the law of vicarious liability. The actual motive of the rogue employee were not on the point.

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Bean, Flaux LJJ
[2018] EWCA Civ 2339, [2018] WLR(D) 653, [2019] 2 All ER 579, [2019] ICR 357, [2019] IRLR 73, [2019] 2 WLR 99, [2019] QB 772
Bailii, WLRD
Data Protection Act 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
At QBD – Various Claimants v WM Morrisons Supermarket Plc QBD 1-Dec-2017
The defendant employer had had confidential information of many of its staff taken and disclosed by a rogue employee. The employees now sought compensation. The main issue was whether the company was directly or vicariously liable for the tort.
Cited by:
At CA – WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc v Various Claimants SC 1-Apr-2020
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.625969

Cox v Ministry of Justice: Misc 3 May 2013

(Swansea County Court) While working as a catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, the claimant suffered injury in an accident caused by the negligence of a prisoner who was carrying out paid work under her supervision. She now sought damages from the Ministry
Held: The prisoner was negligent, but not the prison service. Though there were respects in which its relationship with the prisoner resembled employment, there was a crucial difference. Employment was a voluntary relationship, in which each party acted for its own advantage. The position regarding prisoners at work was different. The prison authorities were required to offer work to prisoners and, by the policy set out in the Prison Service Order, to make payment for that work. Those requirements were not voluntary. The provision of work was a matter of prison discipline, of prisoners’ rehabilitation, and possibly of discharging the prisoners’ obligations to the community. Although the work done by prisoners might contribute to the efficient and economical operation of the prison, the prisoners were not furthering a business undertaking of the prison service.

Keyser QC HHJ
[2013] EW Misc 1 (CC)
Bailii
Health and Safety Act 1974 48(3), Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 5(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Cox v Ministry of Justice CA 19-Feb-2014
Appeal against rejection of claim for personal injury. While working as the catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, the Claimant was injured in an accident caused by the negligence of a prisoner carrying out paid work under her supervision. The . .
At County Court – Cox v Ministry of Justice SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant was working in a prison supervising working prisoners. One of them dropped a bag of rice on her causing injury. At the County Curt, the prisoner was found negligence in the prisoner, but not the appellant for vicarious liability. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510046

Uxbridge Permanent Building Society v Pickard: CA 1939

It is not within the actual authority of a solicitor’s clerk to commit a fraud. But it is within his ostensible authority to perform acts of the class which solicitors would normally carry out: ‘so long as he is acting within the scope of that class of act, his employer is bound whether or not the clerk is acting for his own purposes or for his employer’s purposes’.
Sir Wilfrid Greene MR
[1939] 2 KB 248
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – J J Coughlan Ltd v Ruparelia and others CA 21-Jul-2003
The defendant firm of solicitors had acted in a matter involving a fraud. One partner was involved in the fraud. The claimants sought to recover from the partnership.
Held: ‘The issue is not how the transaction ought properly to be described, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.186088

Donovan v Laing, Wharton and Down Construction Syndicate Ltd: CA 1893

The plaintiff was injured by the negligence of a crane driver. The defendants had contracted to lend the crane with its driver to a firm who were loading a ship.
Held: There are circumstances in which vicarious liability for the tortious act of a workman can be transferred from his employer to a third person who is using the employee’s services under a contract, or other arrangement, with his employer. Although the crane driver remained the general employee of the defendants, they had parted with the power of controlling him with regard to the matter on which he was engaged and were not liable for his negligence while he was so employed.
Lord Esher MR said: ‘For some purposes, no doubt, the man was the servant of the defendants. Probably, if he had let the crane get out of order by his neglect, and in consequence anyone was injured thereby, the defendants might be liable; but the accident in this case did not happen from that cause, but from the manner of working the crane. The man was bound to work the crane according to the orders and under the entire and absolute control of Jones and Co.’ Bowen LJ said that the court only had to consider in whose employment the man was at the time the acts complained of were done, in the sense that by the employer is meant the person who has a right at the moment to control the doing of the act. The question was whether the defendants had parted with the power of controlling the operation on which the man was engaged.
Bowen LJ, Lord Esher MR
[1893] 1 QB 629
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd and others CA 10-Oct-2005
The defendants had subcontracted work installing air conditioning to the second defendants, who in turn bought in fitters from the third defendants. A fitter caused a flood acting irresponsibly.
Held: The court reviewed the law of vicarious . .
Cited – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .
Cited – JGE v The Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust CA 12-Jul-2012
The claimant suffered physical and serious sexual abuse whilst a child at a children’s home run by the defendant. A parish priest committed some of the abuse, and she claimed that the defendants were vicariously liable. They denied such liability. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 September 2021; Ref: scu.231004

Denham v Midland Employers’ Mutual Assurance Limited: CA 1955

The court was asked which of two mutually exclusive liability insurance policies covered damages which an employer was liable to pay to the widow of an employee, who was killed while he was working under the specific direction of engineers engaged by the employer to do work on their land.
Held: In none of the transfer cases cited to the court had the consent of the man been sought or obtained. The general employer had simply told the employee to go and do some particular work for the temporary employer and he had gone. The supposed transfer was nothing more than a device. Lord Denning referred to the Mersey Docks case, saying that such a transfer rarely takes place when a man is lent with a machine. But a transfer does sometimes take place when a man is lent to help with labouring work.
Denning LJ said (obiter): ‘Much of the difficulty arose out of the 19th century idea that a servant of a general employer may be transferred to a temporary employer so as to become for the time being the servant of the temporary employer. The conception was a very useful device to put liability on the shoulders of one who should properly bear it, but it did not affect the contract of service itself. No contract of service could be transferred without the servant’s consent: and this consent is not to be raised by operation of law but only by the real consent in fact of the man, express or implied: see Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ld. In none of the transfer cases which have been cited to us had the consent of the man been sought or obtained. The general employer has simply told him to go and do some particular work for the temporary employer and he has gone. The supposed transfer, when it takes place, is nothing more than a device – a very convenient and just device, mark you – to put liability on to the temporary employer; and even this device has in recent years been very much restricted in its operation. It only applies when the servant is transferred so completely that the temporary employer has the right to dictate, not only what the servant is to do, but also how he is to do it: see Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins and; Griffith (Liverpool) Ld. Such a transfer rarely takes place, if ever, when a man is lent with a machine, such as a crane or a lorry: nor when a skilled man is lent so as to exercise his skill for the temporary employer. In such case the parties do not contemplate that the temporary employer shall tell the man how to manipulate his machine or to exercise his skill. But a transfer does sometimes take place in the case when an unskilled man is lent to help with labouring work: see Garrard v. A. E. Southey and Co. [1952] 2 QB 174. The temporary employer can then no doubt tell the labourer how he is to do the job. The labourer becomes so much part of the organization to which he is seconded that the temporary employer is responsible for him and to him.’ and
‘These results are achieved in law by holding that Clegg became for the time being the temporary servant for Le Grands. There is no harm in thus describing him so long as it is remembered that it is a device designed to cast liability on the temporary employer. The real basis of the liability is, however, simply this: if a temporary employer has the right to control the manner in which a labourer does his work, so as to be able to tell him the right way or the wrong way to do it, then he should be responsible when he does it in the wrong way as well as the right way. The right of control carries with it the burden of responsibility.’
Romer LJ, Birkett LJ, Denning LJ
[1955] 2 QB 437
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd HL 1946
Employers Liability for Worker’s Negligence
A worker was injured by a negligently driven crane. The crane and Board’s driver were hired out to stevedores for loading work. The stevedores controlled the crane’s operations, but did not direct how the driver controlled the crane. The hire . .

Cited by:
Cited – Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd and others CA 10-Oct-2005
The defendants had subcontracted work installing air conditioning to the second defendants, who in turn bought in fitters from the third defendants. A fitter caused a flood acting irresponsibly.
Held: The court reviewed the law of vicarious . .
Cited – Biffa Waste Services Ltd and Another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese Gmbh and others CA 12-Nov-2008
The defendant contracted to build a plant for the claimant. The plant was damaged by a fire caused by the defendant’s independent sub-contractor. The defendant appealed against the finding that it was responsible for the sub-contractor’s failure. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 September 2021; Ref: scu.230998

Morgan v The Vale Of Neath Railway Company: CEC 27 Nov 1865

The rule, which exempts a master from liability to a servant for injury caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant, applies in cases where, although the immediate object on which the one servant is employed is very dissimilar from that on which the other is employed, yet the risk of injury from the negligence of the one is so much a natural and necessary consequence of the employment which the other accepts that it must be included in the risks which have to be considered in his wages. Thus, whenever an employment in the service of a railway company is such as necessarily to bring the person accepting it into contact with the traffic of the line, risk of injury from the carelessness of those managing that traffic is one of the risks necessarily and naturally incident to such employment, and within the rule. The plaintiff was in the employment of a railway company as a carpenter, to do any carpenter’s work for the general purposes of the company. He was standing on a scaffolding at -work on a shed close to the line of railway, and some porters in the service of the company carelessly shifted an engine on a turn-table so that it struck a ladder supporting the scaffold, by which means the plaintiff was thrown down and injured.
Held: On the above principle, that the company were not liable.
[1865] EngR 751, (1865) 5 B and S 736, (1865) 122 ER 1004, (1865-1866) LR 1 QB 149, [1865] UKLawRpKQB 32
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Morgan v The Vale Of Neath Railway Company QBD 4-Jul-1864
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.281663

Morgan v The Vale Of Neath Railway Company: QBD 4 Jul 1864

[1864] EngR 638, (1864) 5 B and S 570, (1864) 122 ER 944
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Morgan v The Vale Of Neath Railway Company CEC 27-Nov-1865
The rule, which exempts a master from liability to a servant for injury caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant, applies in cases where, although the immediate object on which the one servant is employed is very dissimilar from that on which . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.282352

Stanbury v Exeter Corporation: 1905

An action was brought against the corporation for the negligence of an inspector who, acting under the 1894 Act seized and detained sheep suspected of sheep-scab.
Held: The corporation was not liable. The inspector was performing a function imposed directly upon him by statute; it was a function that was, for him, and not the corporation, to perform.
Lord Alverstone CJ
[1905] 2 KB 838
Diseases of Animals Act 1894
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Matuszczyk v National Coal Board 1953
The pursuer sought damages at common law after being injured by a shot-firing by a co-worker. The pursuer based his case on duties said to be owed to him by the shot-firer at common law. The defenders’ argument was that these duties had been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.241428

The Citizens Life Assurance Company Limited v Brown: PC 6 May 1904

(New South Wales) A malicious libel was alleged. The life assurance company was vicariously liable in respect of a libel contained in a circular sent out by a person who was employed by the company under a written agreement as its ‘superintendent of agencies’. By the terms of the agreement that person was to devote his whole time to furthering the company’s business and was to be paid a salary weekly as well as a commission on policies procured by him.
Held: He was a servant of the company for whose actions the company was liable. Once companies are recognised by the law as legal persons, they are liable to have the mental states of agents and employees such as dishonesty or malice attributed to them for the purpose of establishing civil liability.
Lord Lindley said: ‘If it is once granted that corporations are for civil purposes to be regarded as persons, ie as principals acting by agents and servants, it is difficult to see why the ordinary doctrines of agency and of master and servant are not to be applied to corporations as well as to ordinary individuals.’
Lord Lindley
[1904] UKPC 20, [1904] AC 423
Bailii
Australia
Citing:
Rejected – Abrath v North Eastern Railway Co HL 15-Mar-1886
The plaintiff had brought an action against the company of malicious prosecution. It was rejected by the jury and again on appeal.
Held: The appeal failed. In an action for damages for the tort of malicious prosecution one of the elements of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
Cited – Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others CA 31-Jul-2013
Defendants appealed against refusal of their request for a summary striking out for lack of jurisdiction, of the claims against them arising from their management of the insolvency of the first defendant. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.419585

Canadian Pacific Railway Co v Lockhart: PC 1941

When considering the imposition of vicarious liability, ‘the first consideration is the ascertainment of what the servant is employed to do.’ (Lord Thankerton) and ‘It is clear that the master is responsible for acts actually authorised by him: for liability would exist in this case, even if the relation between the parties was merely one of agency, and not one of service at all. But a master, as opposed to the employer of an independent contractor, is liable even for acts which he has not authorized, provided they are so connected with acts which he has authorized that they may rightly be regarded as modes – although improper modes – of doing them. In other words, a master is responsible not merely for what he authorizes his servant to do,but also for the way in which he does it . . On the other hand, if the unauthorized and wrongful act of the servant is not so connected with the authorized act as to be a mode of doing it, but is an independent act, the master is not responsible: for in such a case, the servant is not acting in the course of his employment but has gone outside of it.’ and
‘It is often difficult in the particular case to distinguish between the second and the third of these situations, but the criterion is whether the act which is unauthorised is so connected with acts which have been authorised that it may be regarded as a mode – although an improper mode – of doing the authorised act, as distinct from constituting an independent act for which the master would not be liable.’
Lord Dunedin said: ‘there are prohibitions which limit the sphere of employment, and prohibitions which only deal with conduct within the sphere of employment.’
Lord Thankerton, Lord Dunedin
[1942] AC 591, [1941] SCR 278, [1942] All ER 464
Canada
Citing:
Cited – Plumb v Cobden Flour Mills Co Ltd HL 1914
In looking at restrictions by an employer to limit his vicarious liability, the court must distinguish between prohibitions which limit the sphere of employment and those which only deal with conduct within the sphere of employment:’ ‘there are . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.214663

Launchbury v Morgans: HL 9 May 1972

The owner of a car appealed against a ruling that she was responsible for injury suffered by the three respondents who had been passengers in the car when it crashed. The owner had not been with them. The care was driven by her husband with her permission, but whilst he was not fit to drive through drink. He had died in the accident. The House considered whether it had the ability to make a ruling which was effective as to the future only. The respondents argued that a special rule should exist for drivers of motor cars.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Lord Wilberforce said: ‘We cannot, without yet further innovation, change the law prospectively only’. A vehicle owner is vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver when, but only when the driver is the agent of the owner, in the sense that he is using it for the owner’s delegated purpose.
Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Pearson, Lord Cross of Chelsea, Lord Salmon
[1972] UKHL 5, [1973] AC 127
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Launchbury v Morgans CA 1971
The wife owned the car. The husband who had drunk to excess drove the car with her permission, causing severe injury to the passengers and his own death. She was not present.
Held: From considerations of policy, as the owner of the family car . .
Cited – Ormrod v Crosville Motor Services Ltd CA 2-Jan-1953
A friend drove the owner’s car from Birkenhead to Monte Carlo, carrying with him a suitcase belonging to the car owner, so that the two of them could go on holiday with the car in Switzerland. The basis of the finding of vicarious liability on the . .

Cited by:
Cited – National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others HL 30-Jun-2005
Former HL decision in Siebe Gorman overruled
The company had become insolvent. The bank had a debenture and claimed that its charge over the book debts had become a fixed charge. The preferential creditors said that the charge was a floating charge and that they took priority.
Held: The . .
Cited – Various Claimants v The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others CA 26-Oct-2010
Child sexual abuse was alleged by 150 claimants against staff members of a community home with teachers supplied by the defendants. The court had asked whether they had vicarious liability for the acts of their staff, and now whether the board of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.228278

Hamlyn v John Houston and Co: CA 1903

One side of the defendant’s business as grain merchants was to obtain, by lawful means, information about its competitors’ activities. Houston, a partner in the firm, obtained confidential information on the plaintiff Hamlyn’s business by bribing one of Hamlyn’s employees.
Held: The firm was liable for the loss suffered by Hamlyn. If it was within the scope of Houston’s authority to obtain the information by legitimate means, then for the purpose of vicarious liability it was within the scope of his authority to obtain it by illegitimate means and the firm was liable accordingly. This was on the broad ‘risk’ principle: the principal having selected the agent, and being the person who will have the benefit of his efforts if successful, it is not unjust he should bear the risk of the agent ‘exceeding his authority in matters incidental to the doing of the acts the performance of which has been delegated to him’.
Collins MR
[1903] 1 KB 81
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.193844

Iqbal v London Transport Executive: CA 6 Jun 1973

The court was asked whether the London Transport Executive was liable for the action of a bus conductor in driving contrary to his express instructions a motor bus a short distance in a garage.
Held: The instruction acted as a prohibition which defined the sphere of the bus conductor’s employment.
[1973] EWCA Civ 3, Times 06-Jun-1973, (1973) 16 KIR 329
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rose v Plenty CA 7-Jul-1975
Contrary to his employers orders, a milkman allowed children to assist him in his milkround. One was injured, and sued the milkman’s employer.
Held: The milkman had not gone so far outside the activities for which he was employed for the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.262739

Hughes v Percival: 1883

The parties were neighbouring householders with a party wall. A builder working in the defendant’s house negligently cut into the party wall, causing the partial collapse of both the defendant’s house and the Plaintiff’s house next-door.
Held: Lord Blackburn said: ‘The first point to be considered is what was the relation in which the defendant stood to the plaintiff. It was admitted that they were owners of adjoining houses between which was a party-wall the property of both. The defendant pulled down his house and had it rebuilt on a plan which involved in it the tying together of the new building and the party-wall which was between the plaintiff’s house and the defendant’s, so that if one fell the other would be damaged. The defendant had a right so to utilize the party-wall, for it was his property as well as the plaintiff’s; a stranger would not have had such a right. But I think the law cast upon the defendant, when exercising this right, a duty towards the plaintiff. I do not think that duty went so far as to require him absolutely to provide that no damage should come to the plaintiff’s wall from the use he thus made of it, but I think that the duty went as far as to require him to see that reasonable skill and care were exercised in those operations which involved a use of the party-wall, exposing it to this risk. If such a duty was cast upon the defendant he could not get rid of responsibility by delegating the performance of it to a third person. He was at liberty to employ such a third person to fulfil the duty which the law cast on himself, and, if they so agreed together, to take an indemnity to himself in case mischief came from that person not fulfilling the duty which the law cast upon the defendant; but the defendant still remained subject to that duty, and liable for the consequences if it was not fulfilled. This is the law I think clearly laid down in Pickard v Smith 10 CB (NS) 470, and finally in (1881) Dalton v Angus 6 App Cas 740. But in all the cases on the subject there was a duty cast by law on the party who was held liable.’
Lord Blackburn
(1883) 8 App Cas 443, [1881-85] All ER 44, (1883) 8 AC 443
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.516945

Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers (South Wales Area): ChD 1985

Threats made by pickets to those miners who sought to go to work were not an assault because the pickets had no capacity to put into effect their threats of violence whilst they were held back from the vehicles which the working miners were within. The plaintiffs were, however, entitled to enjoy their right to use the highway to go to work without unreasonable harassment and that picketing by 50 to 70 striking miners shouting abuse was a tortious interference with that right. The actions of the striking miners were therefore actionable in nuisance.
Scot J
[1986] Ch 20, [1985] 2 All ER 1, [1985] IRLR 157, [1985] ICR 886, [1985] 2 WLR 1081
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.466788

Vasey v Surrey Free Inns Plc: CA 5 May 1995

The claimant had been refused entry to the nightclub and in a temper he had kicked the door and damaged glass in it. Employees of the defendants’ nightclub, two employed as doormen, pursued the group of whom the claimant was one, to a public car park nearby and seriously assaulted the claimant.
Held: ‘. . the conduct of the assailants was a reaction to the damage to the door. There is no evidence that it related to some private quarrel or incident which occurred subsequently to and unrelated to the performance of the employee’s duty . . The evidence of the plaintiff to which I have referred, makes it plain that they wished to teach a lesson to the person who had caused that damage. That was the sole purpose of the attack. It was, of course, an unlawful and unauthorised manner of carrying out the duty to which I have referred, but I have no doubt that such is what it was. They were not pursuing their own purpose.’ and, as to responsibility in negligence for the doormen,’. . it is part of the duty of a manager of such an establishment to exercise proper control over such men to prevent, so far as he reasonably can, unwarranted assaults on customers. Moreover, as Mr. Coleman was inclined to accept, it is reasonably foreseeable that, if he fails in that duty, a person who was offered some provocation may be assaulted and injured.’
Stuart-Smith LJ
[1996] PIQR 373
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Brown v Robinson and Sentry PC 14-Dec-2004
(Jamaica) The deceased claimant had been shot by a sentry employed by the respondent company. His estate appealed a finding that the sentry was not acting in the course of his employment.
Held: Older authorities had now been replaced by recent . .
Cited – Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.214876

Maxwell v Pressdram Ltd: CA 1987

The court was asked whether disclosure should be ordered in the context of the statutory privilege which was created by s.10 of the 1981 Act. The publisher defendant had deposed that it would justify the material. At trial, however, the defence of justification was abandoned and the judge said he would make a (strong) comment adverse to the defendant in the course of his charge of the jury, but he held that the witness need not reveal the source of his material.
Held: The appeal failed. A plea of negligence is insufficient to found a claim for exemplary damages. Some conscious wrongdoing is necessary.
Parker LJ made the point that ‘it is not sufficient merely to say that the information which is sought (to be obtained) is information which is relevant to the determination of an issue before the court. Were that so, it would always be possible to obtain an order for disclosure . ‘
References: [1987] 1 WLR 298, [1987] 1 All ER 656
Judges: Kerr LJ, Parker LJ
Statutes: Contempt of Court Act 1981 10
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
(Times 29-Oct-99, Gazette 25-Nov-99, Gazette 17-Nov-99, , , [2001] 2 AC 127, [1999] UKHL 45, [1999] 4 All ER 609, [1999] 3 WLR 1010, [2000] EMLR 1, [2000] HRLR 134, 7 BHRC 289)
Cited – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
mosley_newsgroupQBD2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
(, [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB), [2008] EMLR 20)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194515

Bartonshill Coal Co v Reid: HL 1858

A workman had been killed through the overturning of the miners’ cage, the engineman having failed to stop the ascending cage at the platform and having allowed it to be sent with great force up against the scaffolding. An allegation was made that there had been no safe system of working.
Held: After dealing with the maxim ‘respondeat superior’, Lord Cranworth said: ‘But do the same principles apply to the case of a workman injured by the want of care of a fellow-workman engaged together in the same work? I think not. When the workman contracts to do work of any particular sort, he knows, or ought to know, to what risks he is exposing himself; he knows, if such be the nature of the risk, that want of care on the part of a fellow-workman may be injurious or fatal to him, and that against such want of care his employer cannot by possibility protect him. If such want of care should occur, and evil is the result, he cannot say that he does not know whether the master or the servant was to blame. He knows that the blame was wholly that of the servant. He cannot say the master need not have engaged in the work at all, for he was party to its being undertaken.’ The law on this point should be the same in Scotland as in England.
References: (1858) 3 Macqu 265
Judges: Lord Cranworth
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:

Cited – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English HL 19-Jul-1937 ([1938] AC 57, , [1937] UKHL 2, [1937] 3 All ER 628)
The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . .
Cited – Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA 13-Nov-2009 (, [2009] EWCA Civ 1203, (2010) 11 BMLR 131, [2010] PIQR P7, [2010] Med LR 1)
The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.379553

Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another: CA 13 Nov 2009

The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, despite doubts about the adequate of the sample, and the pregnancy continued. The child was born with the disease. The court had found negligence and apportioned the damages.
Held: The court had fallen into error in not accepting the expert descriptions of normal good practice. The testing hospital was able to assume the adequacy of the sample unless informed of this by the testing agency. The hospital laboratory carried none of the liability.
Dyson LJ said that any departure from the general rule as to the liability of an employer for the acts of others had to be justified on policy grounds. If the position were to be otherwise, there was a danger that the general rule would become the exception rather than the rule, and that is not the law.
References: [2009] EWCA Civ 1203, (2010) 11 BMLR 131, [2010] PIQR P7, [2010] Med LR 1
Links: Bailii
Judges: Sedley, Dyson, Smith LJJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

Cited – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English HL 19-Jul-1937 ([1938] AC 57, , [1937] UKHL 2, [1937] 3 All ER 628)
The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . .
Cited – Kondis v State Transport Authority 16-Oct-1984 (, [1984] HCA 61, (1984) 154 CLR 672, (1984) 55 ALR 225, (1984) 58 ALJR 531, (1984) Aust Torts Reports 80-311)
(High Court of Australia) Mason J discussed the concept of the personal duty which Lord Wright expounded in Wilson and said that it made it impossible to draw a convincing distinction between the delegation of performance of the employer’s duty to . .
Cited – D and F Estates v Church Commissioners for England HL 14-Jul-1988 (, [1988] UKHL 4, [1989] AC 177)
The House considered the liability of main contractors on a construction site for the negligence of it sub-contractors.
Lord Bridge said: ‘It is trite law that the employer of an independent contractor is, in general, not liable for the . .
Cited – Gold v Essex County Council CA 1942 ([1942] 2 KB 293)
The hospital was held accountable for an injury caused by negligence of an employee radiographer. The main issue was whether the authority could be vicariously liable even for employees in cases where their employment called for the exercise of . .
Cited – Cassidy v Ministry of Health CA 1951 ([1951] 2 KB 343)
The court considered the liability in negligence of the respondent for the negligence of doctors employed by it.
Held: The Ministry was liable for the negligence of doctors who were employed by it on contracts of service.
Denning LJ . .
Cited – A v Ministry of Defence; Re A (A Child) CA 7-May-2004 (Times 17-May-04, Gazette 03-Jun-04, , [2004] EWCA Civ 641, [2005] QB 183)
The wife of a British Army soldier serving in Germany delivered a premature baby, ‘A’, with a German obstetrician in a German hospital. A suffered brain damage in the birth as a result of the obstetrician’s negligence. The mother claimed against the . .
Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995 (Independent 30-Jun-95, Times 30-Jun-95, [1995] 2 AC 633, , [1995] UKHL 9, [1995] 2 FLR 276, [1995] 3 All ER 353, [1995] 3 WLR 152, [1995] 3 FCR 337, (1995) 7 Admin LR 705, 94 LGR 313, [1995] Fam Law 537, [1995] 3 FCR 337)
Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .
Cited – Priestley v Fowler 1837 (, [1837] EngR 202, (1837) 3 M and W 1, (1837) 150 ER 1030)
Priestley was a butcher’s man who was injured when a van overloaded by fellow employees collapsed, injuring him. His lawsuit was founded on the principle of a master’s vicarious liability for his servant’s negligence. . .
Cited – Bartonshill Coal Co v Reid HL 1858 ((1858) 3 Macqu 265)
A workman had been killed through the overturning of the miners’ cage, the engineman having failed to stop the ascending cage at the platform and having allowed it to be sent with great force up against the scaffolding. An allegation was made that . .
Cited – Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital 1989 ([1990] 2 Med LR 103, (1989) 17 NSWLR 553)
(Court of Appeal of New South Wales) Samuels JA discussed the circumstances in which a non-delegable duty of care arises: ‘It arises from a relationship which combines the dependence of A upon the reasonable care, skill and judgment of B with the . .
Cited – Roe v Ministry of Health CA 1954 ([1954] 2 QB 66, , [1954] 2 All ER 131, [1954] 2 WLR 915, [1954] EWCA Civ 7)
The plaintiff complained that he had developed a spastic paraplegia following a lumbar puncture.
Held: An inference of negligence was rebutted. However the hospital authority was held to be vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the . .
Cited – Robertson v Nottingham Health Authority CA 1987 ([1987] 8 Med LR 1)
Brooke LJ held that ‘the only rule that this court has to apply in the present case is that if a patient is injured by reason of a negligent breakdown in the systems for communicating material information to the clinicians responsible for her care, . .
Cited – Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority CA 1986 (, [1986] 3 All ER 801, [1987] 2 WLR 425)
A prematurely-born baby was the subject of certain medical procedures, in the course of which a breach of duty occurred. to ensure that the correct amount was administered it was necessary to insert a catheter into an umbilical artery so that his . .
Cited – Joseph Smith (Pauper) v Charles Baker and Sons HL 21-Jul-1891 (, [1891] UKHL 2, [1891] AC 325)
. .
Cited – Mitchil v Alestree 1726 (, [1726] EngR 590, (1726) 1 Vent 295, (1726) 86 ER 190 (B))
In an action upon the case brought against the defendant, for that he did ride an horse into a place called Lincoln’s Inn Fields, (a place much frequented by the King’s subjects, and unapt for such purposes) for the breaking and taming of him, and . .

This case is cited by:

Cited – Woodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD 17-Oct-2011 (, [2011] EWHC 2631 (QB), [2012] PIQR P3, [2012] ELR 76)
The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children . .
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council CA 9-Mar-2012 (, [2012] EWCA Civ 239, [2013] 3 WLR 853, [2012] ELR 327, [2012] Med LR 419, [2012] PIQR P12, [2012] BLGR 879)
The claimant had been injured in a swimming pool during a lesson. The lesson was conducted by outside independent contractors. The claimant appealed against a finding that his argument that they had a non-delegable duty of care was bound to fail. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.377910

Kondis v State Transport Authority: 16 Oct 1984

(High Court of Australia) Mason J discussed the concept of the personal duty which Lord Wright expounded in Wilson and said that it made it impossible to draw a convincing distinction between the delegation of performance of the employer’s duty to an employee and delegation to an independent contractor. As Mason J said: ‘On the hypothesis that the duty is personal or incapable of delegation, the employer is liable for its negligent performance, whether the performance be that of an employee or that of an independent contractor’ and as to the existence of a non-delegable duty: ‘when we look to the classes of case in which the existence of a non-delegable duty has been recognised, it appears that there is some element in the relationship between the parties that makes it appropriate to impose on the defendant a duty to ensure that reasonable care and skill is taken for the safety of the persons to whom the duty is owed . . The element in the relationship between the parties which generates a special responsibility or duty to see that care is taken may be found in one or more of several circumstances. The hospital undertakes the care, supervision and control of patients who are in special need of care. The school authority undertakes like special responsibilities in relation to the children whom it accepts into its care. If the invitor be subject to a special duty, it is because he assumes a particular responsibility in relation to the safety of his premises and the safety of his invitee by inviting him to enter them . . In these situations the special duty arises because the person on whom it is imposed has undertaken the care, supervision or control of the person or property of another or is so placed in relation to that person or his property as to assume a particular responsibility for his or its safety, in circumstances where the person affected might reasonably expect that due care will be exercised.’
References: [1984] HCA 61, (1984) 154 CLR 672, (1984) 55 ALR 225, (1984) 58 ALJR 531, (1984) Aust Torts Reports 80-311
Links: Austlii
Judges: Mason J
Jurisdiction: Australia
This case cites:

Explained – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English HL 19-Jul-1937 ([1938] AC 57, , [1937] UKHL 2, [1937] 3 All ER 628)
The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . .

This case is cited by:

Cited – Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA 13-Nov-2009 (, [2009] EWCA Civ 1203, (2010) 11 BMLR 131, [2010] PIQR P7, [2010] Med LR 1)
The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .
Cited – Woodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD 17-Oct-2011 (, [2011] EWHC 2631 (QB), [2012] PIQR P3, [2012] ELR 76)
The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children . .
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council CA 9-Mar-2012 (, [2012] EWCA Civ 239, [2013] 3 WLR 853, [2012] ELR 327, [2012] Med LR 419, [2012] PIQR P12, [2012] BLGR 879)
The claimant had been injured in a swimming pool during a lesson. The lesson was conducted by outside independent contractors. The claimant appealed against a finding that his argument that they had a non-delegable duty of care was bound to fail. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.378397

Seabord Offshore Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (The Safe Carrier): HL 25 Mar 1994

The House was asked whether a ship manager was legally responsible for the acts of the ship’s chief engineer under s31(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which imposed a duty on the manager to take all reasonable steps to secure that the ship was operated in a safe manner. The prosecution had failed because the case had not been presented at trial before the Justices in a manner which enabled them to consider whether the manager had failed to take all reasonable steps. It was too late to argue on appeal that there had been a failure to establish adequate systems for securing that the ship did not go to sea before the chief engineer had sufficient opportunity to familiarise himself with its machinery and equipment.
Held: The Act does not impose vicarious liability on the owners of ships for the omissions of their reasonably and properly instructed agents or employees.
Lord Keith of Kinkel showed his distaste for the imposition of absolute liability: ‘It would be surprising if by the language used in section 31 [of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988] Parliament had intended that the owner of a ship should be criminally liable for any act or omission by any officer of the crew or member of the crew which resulted in unsafe operation of the ship, ranging from a failure by the managing director to arrange repairs to a failure by the bosun or cabin steward to close portholes.’
References: Independent 24-Mar-1994, Gazette 11-May-1994, Times 25-Mar-1994, [1994] 2 All ER 99, [1994] 1 WLR 541
Judges: Lord Keith of Kinkel
Statutes: Merchant Shipping Act 1988 31
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

Cited – Regina v St Regis Paper Company Ltd CACD 4-Nov-2011 (, [2011] EWCA Crim 2527, [2012] PTSR 871, [2012] 1 Cr App R 14, [2012] Lloyd’s Rep FC 221, [2012] Env LR 16)
The court was asked as to the extent which the appellant, St. Regis Paper Company Limited, could be held criminally liable for intentionally making a false entry in a record required for environmental pollution control in its application to offences . .
Cited – Odyssey Re (London) Ltd (Formerly Sphere Drake Insurance Plc) and Another v OIC Run-Off Ltd (Formerly Orion Insurance Co Plc) Admn 15-Feb-2000 ([2000] EWHC Admin 291)
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.89078

Goff v The Great Northern Railway Company; 13 Feb 1861

References: [1861] EngR 316, (1861) 3 El & El 672, (1861) 121 ER 594
Links: Commonlii
A railway Company though it be a corporation, is liable in an action for false imprisonment, if that imprisonment be committed by its authority.
Last Update: 18-Nov-15 Ref: 284077

Lewis v British Columbia; 11 Dec 1997

References: [1997] 3 SCR 1145, 43 BCLR (3d) 154, 1997 CanLII 304 (SCC), 153 DLR (4th) 594, [1998] 5 WWR 732
Links: Canlii, Canlii
Coram: Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ
(Supreme Court of Canada) Torts – Negligence – Highways – Crown liability – Provincial ministry engaging independent contractor to remove rocks from cliff face – Contractor performing work negligently, leaving rocks protruding from cliff face – Driver fatally injured when one of rocks fell from cliff face and crashed through his windshield – Whether provincial ministry absolved from liability for contractor’s negligence.
Cory J said that a common law duty of care ‘does not usually demand compliance with a specific obligation. It is only when an act is undertaken by a party that a general duty arises to perform the act with reasonable care.’
This case is cited by:

Cited – Woodland -v- Essex County Council SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 66, WLRD, [2013] 3 WLR 1227, [2013] WLR(D) 403, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0093, SC Summary, SC)
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .

Kondis v State Transport Authority; 16 Oct 1984

References: [1984] HCA 61, (1984) 154 CLR 672, (1984) 55 ALR 225, (1984) 58 ALJR 531, (1984) Aust Torts Reports 80-311
Links: Austlii
Coram: Mason J
(High Court of Australia) Mason J discussed the concept of the personal duty which Lord Wright expounded in Wilson and said that it made it impossible to draw a convincing distinction between the delegation of performance of the employer’s duty to an employee and delegation to an independent contractor. As Mason J said: ‘On the hypothesis that the duty is personal or incapable of delegation, the employer is liable for its negligent performance, whether the performance be that of an employee or that of an independent contractor’ and as to the existence of a non-delegable duty: ‘when we look to the classes of case in which the existence of a non-delegable duty has been recognised, it appears that there is some element in the relationship between the parties that makes it appropriate to impose on the defendant a duty to ensure that reasonable care and skill is taken for the safety of the persons to whom the duty is owed . . The element in the relationship between the parties which generates a special responsibility or duty to see that care is taken may be found in one or more of several circumstances. The hospital undertakes the care, supervision and control of patients who are in special need of care. The school authority undertakes like special responsibilities in relation to the children whom it accepts into its care. If the invitor be subject to a special duty, it is because he assumes a particular responsibility in relation to the safety of his premises and the safety of his invitee by inviting him to enter them . . In these situations the special duty arises because the person on whom it is imposed has undertaken the care, supervision or control of the person or property of another or is so placed in relation to that person or his property as to assume a particular responsibility for his or its safety, in circumstances where the person affected might reasonably expect that due care will be exercised.’
This case cites:

Explained – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd -v- English HL ([1938] AC 57, Bailii, [1937] UKHL 2)
The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . .

This case is cited by:

Cited – Farraj and Another -v- King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 1203, (2010) 11 BMLR 131, [2010] PIQR P7, [2010] Med LR 1)
The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .
Cited – Woodland -v- The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2631 (QB), [2012] PIQR P3, [2012] ELR 76)
The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children . .
Cited – Woodland -v- Essex County Council CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 239, [2013] 3 WLR 853, [2012] ELR 327, [2012] Med LR 419, [2012] PIQR P12, [2012] BLGR 879)
The claimant had been injured in a swimming pool during a lesson. The lesson was conducted by outside independent contractors. The claimant appealed against a finding that his argument that they had a non-delegable duty of care was bound to fail. . .

Jacobi v Griffiths; 17 Jun 1999

References: (1999) 174 DLR(4th) 71, [1999] 9 WWR 1, 44 CCEL (2d) 169, 63 BCLR (3d) 1
Links: Canlii
(Canadian Supreme Court) The process for determining when a non-authorised act by an employee is so connected to the employer’s enterprise that liability should be imposed involved two steps: 1. Firstly a court should determine whether there are precedents which unambiguously determine on which side of the line between vicarious liability and no liability the case falls. 2. If prior cases do not clearly suggest a solution the next step is to determine whether vicarious liability should be imposed in light of the broader policy rationales behind strict liability. In this case that test was not satisfied.
This case cites:

Criticised – Simon Trotman (By her Mother and Next Friend Irene Trotman) -v- North Yorkshire County Council CA (Gazette 26-Aug-98, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 1208, [1999] LGR 584)
The court considered the liability of the respondent for sexual assaults committed by an employee teacher when taking students on school trips.
Held: The Local Authority was not vicariously liable for sexual assault committed by employee . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

Approved – Lister and Others -v- Hesley Hall Ltd HL (Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, Bailii, House of Lords, [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215, [2001] 2 All ER 769, [2001] 2 FCR 97, (2001) 3 LGLR 49, [2001] NPC 89, [2001] Fam Law 595, [2001] 2 WLR 1311, [2001] IRLR 472, [2001] ICR 665, [2001] Emp LR 819, [2001] 2 FLR 307, [2001] ELR 422)
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 – Majrowski -v- Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 251, Times 21-Mar-05, [2005] QB 848, [2005] ICR 977, [2005] 2 WLR 1503, [2005] IRLR 340)
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – Gravil -v- Carroll and Another CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 689, Times 22-Jul-08, [2008] ICR 1222, [2008] IRLR 829)
The claimant was injured by an unlawful punch thrown by the first defendant when they played rugby. He sought damages also against the defendant’s club, and now appealed a finding that they were not vicariously liable. The defendant player’s . .
Applied – Maga -v- The Trustees of The Birmingham Archdiocese of The Roman Catholic Church CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 256, Times, [2010] PTSR 1618, [2010] 1 WLR 1441)
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages after alleging sexual abuse by a catholic priest. The judge had found the church not vicariously liable for the injuries, and that the archdiocese had not been under a duty further to . .
Cited – Graham -v- Commercial Bodyworks Ltd CA (Bailii, [2015] EWCA Civ 47, [2015] WLR(D) 50, WLRD)
The claimant had been very badly burned. He was covered in flammable liquid when a co-worker lit a cigarette.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. ‘although the defendant employers did create a risk by requiring their employees to work with . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 14-Dec-15 Ref: 214670

Bazley v Curry; 17 Jun 1999

References: (1999) 174 DLR(4th) 45, [1999] 8 WWR 197, 43 CCEL (2d) 1, 62 BCLR (3d) 173
Links: Canlii
Coram: McLachlin J
(Canadian Supreme Court) The court considerd the doctrine of vicarious liability: ‘The policy purposes underlying the imposition of vicarious liability on employers are served only where the wrong is so connected with the employment that it can be said that the employer has introduced the risk of the wrong (and is thereby fairly and usefully charged with its management and minimization). The question is whether there is a connection or nexus between the employment enterprise and that wrong that justifies imposition of vicarious liability on the employer for the wrong, in terms of fair allocation of the consequences of the risk and/or deterrence.’ The court criticised the decision in Trotman, saying: ‘the opinion’s reasoning depends on the level of generality with which the sexual act is described. Instead of describing the act in terms of the employee’s duties of supervising and caring for vulnerable students during a study trip abroad, the Court of Appeal cast it in terms unrelated to those duties. Important legal decisions should not turn on such semantics. As Atiyah points out (Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts, p 263): ‘conduct can be correctly described at varying levels of generality, and no one description of the ‘act’ on which the servant was engaged is necessarily more correct than any other’.’
This case cites:

Criticised – Simon Trotman (By her Mother and Next Friend Irene Trotman) -v- North Yorkshire County Council CA (Gazette 26-Aug-98, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 1208, [1999] LGR 584)
The court considered the liability of the respondent for sexual assaults committed by an employee teacher when taking students on school trips.
Held: The Local Authority was not vicariously liable for sexual assault committed by employee . .

This case is cited by:

Approved – Lister and Others -v- Hesley Hall Ltd HL (Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, Bailii, House of Lords, [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215, [2001] 2 All ER 769, [2001] 2 FCR 97, (2001) 3 LGLR 49, [2001] NPC 89, [2001] Fam Law 595, [2001] 2 WLR 1311, [2001] IRLR 472, [2001] ICR 665, [2001] Emp LR 819, [2001] 2 FLR 307, [2001] ELR 422)
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 – Bernard -v- The Attorney General of Jamaica PC (PC, Bailii, [2004] UKPC 47, PC, No. 30 of 2003, [2005] IRLR 398)
PC (Jamaica) The claimant had been queuing for some time to make an overseas phone call at the Post Office. Eventually his turn came, he picked up the phone and dialled. Suddenly a man intervened, announced . .
Cited – Majrowski -v- Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 251, Times 21-Mar-05, [2005] QB 848, [2005] ICR 977, [2005] 2 WLR 1503, [2005] IRLR 340)
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – Gravil -v- Carroll and Another CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 689, Times 22-Jul-08, [2008] ICR 1222, [2008] IRLR 829)
The claimant was injured by an unlawful punch thrown by the first defendant when they played rugby. He sought damages also against the defendant’s club, and now appealed a finding that they were not vicariously liable. The defendant player’s . .
Cited – Maga -v- The Trustees of The Birmingham Archdiocese of The Roman Catholic Church CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 256, Times, [2010] PTSR 1618, [2010] 1 WLR 1441)
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages after alleging sexual abuse by a catholic priest. The judge had found the church not vicariously liable for the injuries, and that the archdiocese had not been under a duty further to . .
Cited – Weddall -v- Barchester Healthcare Ltd CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 25)
Parties appealed against judgments dismissing their claims of vicarious liability as against their employers after assaults by co-employees.
Held: Appeals were dismissed and allowed according to their facts.
In one case, one employee . .
Cited – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others -v- Various Claimants & The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 56, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, UKSC 2010/0230, [2012] WLR(D) 335, [2013] 1 All ER 670, [2013] IRLR 219, [2013] PIQR P6, [2013] ELR 1, [2012] 3 WLR 1319, [2013] 2 AC 1)
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .
Cited – Graham -v- Commercial Bodyworks Ltd CA (Bailii, [2015] EWCA Civ 47, [2015] WLR(D) 50, WLRD)
The claimant had been very badly burned. He was covered in flammable liquid when a co-worker lit a cigarette.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. ‘although the defendant employers did create a risk by requiring their employees to work with . .