swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
Vicarious Liability - From: 2004 To: 2004
This page lists 5 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
ÂThe Attorney General v Hartwell [2004] UKPC 12; Times, 27 February 2004; Gazette, 25 March 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 1273; [2004] PIQR 27
23 Feb 2004
PC
Torts - Other, Police, Vicarious Liability
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.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
Â
Naylor (T/A Mainstreet) v Payling [2004] EWCA Civ 560; Times, 02 June 2004
7 May 2004
CA
Waller, Latham and Neuberger LJJ
Torts - Other, Vicarious Liability
The claimant was injured by a door attendant employed as an independent contractor by the defendant. Held: The defendant's duty in selecting an independent contractor was limited to assessing the competence of the contractor. The duties of minding the door were not non-delegable, and therefore there was no additional duty to carry insurance against liability. Here the subcontractor employed doormen who were licensed by the local authority, and the club owner had no duty to enquire further save in exceptional circumstances.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
Frans Maas (Uk) Ltd v Samsung Electronics (Uk) Ltd [2004] EWHC 1502 (Comm); [2004] 2 Lloyds Rep 251
30 Jun 2004
ComC
Agency, Contract, Vicarious Liability
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 involving (though not perfectly) the standard BIFA terms. There was insufficient evidence to support proof of any additional or collateral contract to provide additional security. It appeared that the theft had taken place with the connivance or assistance of a member of the staff of the bailee. Was the employer vicariously liable? "vicarious liability is not established simply because the "guilty" servant had, by reason of his employment, the opportunity to commit the wrongdoing in question. To establish vicarious liability, more than a mere opportunity to commit wrongdoing must exist; there must be a close connection between the work the servant had been employed to do and the wrongdoing. " Here, the custody of the premises could not be divorced from the custody of the goods, and the company was liable. Was their liability limited by the terms? Limitation clauses were looked at less strictly than exclusion clauses, and the defendant was able to limit its liability in contract and negligence, and had done so. The 1977 Act did not prevent the limitation of liability in these circumstances.
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
 Bernard v The Attorney General of Jamaica; PC 7-Oct-2004 - [2004] UKPC 47; No. 30 of 2003; [2005] IRLR 398
Â
Brown v Robinson and Sentry [2004] UKPC 56
14 Dec 2004
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Clyde, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Commonwealth, Vicarious Liability, Personal Injury, Damages
(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
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
Â
