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 The defenders’ argument was that these duties had been superseded by the duties laid down by statutory regulation, for which the employer was not vicariously liable.
Held: The claim could proceed. The doctrine of common employment having been abolished the employer was vicariously liable: ‘ . . now that common employment has been abolished, the law of Scotland must be back where it was in Dixon v Rankine (1852) 14 D 420, which was disapproved in the Bartonshill case (1858) 3 Macq 266; and we can again rely after a prolonged eclipse upon the well-known judgment of Lord Justice-Clerk Hope from which I take this sentence in which his Lordship is referring to the victim’s fellow servants: ‘For their careful and cautious attention to duty, for their neglect of precautions by which danger to life may be caused, he (the employer) is just as much responsible as for such misconduct on his own part, if he were actually working or present.’ In other words, so far as regards conduct within the scope of the servant’s employment, there is no limit in the general case to the rule respondeat superior.’
Judges:
Lord President Cooper
Citations:
(1953) SC 8
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited by:
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Vicarious Liability
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.241427