(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 in this particular case, counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Australia in Darling Island . . . in which three members of the Court expressed the view that a master could not be held vicariously responsible for the breach of a statutory duty by an employee. I do not necessarily subscribe to this view. If policy is the basis for the vicarious liability of a master at common law because of the culpable conduct of his servant, then, logically, it should be, also, the basis for statutory liability, subject, of course, to the intention of the Legislature as expressed under the relevant legislation.’
Judges:
Craig JA, Bull JA and McFarlane JA
Citations:
(1981) 122 DLR (3d) 340
Jurisdiction:
Canada
Citing:
Not Followed – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Vicarious Liability
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.241431