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:

(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