(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 in the loading and unloading of ships (for which the regulations provided only a criminal sanction), or at common law, since the regulations only imposed a penalty for breach on the employee (‘the person in charge’), not upon the employer.
Citations:
(1957) 97 CLR 36
Cited by:
Not Followed – In Re Nelson and Others v Byron Price and Associates Ltd 1981
(British Columbia Court of Appeal) Craig JA, refused to follow Darling Island to hold that a master could not be held vicariously responsible for the breach of a statutory duty by an employee: ‘In arguing that there should not be vicarious liability . .
Not Followed – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Vicarious Liability, Commonwealth
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.241430