Vicarious Liability

Bayley v. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway 1873 A railway porter saw a man of whom he thought he would go onto the wrong train and pulled him off the train without asking him. The man was injured and missed his train. The porter acted as an employee but did so in a negligent way. Century Insurance v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board 1942 House of Lords A patrol lorry driver smoked a cigarette while driving, which caused an explosion. Is the smoking of a cigarette in the course of employment or not? It was not too far from the employment, the driver did act as an employee. Heasemans v. Clarity Cleaning 1987 Court of Appeal The defendant was an office cleaning company which had a contract to clean the plaintiff's office. One of the women cleaning the office used the telephone (bill: L 1,411). Has she done this in course of her employment? The employers were not responsible. It was not part of her job. There must be a line where the employers are protected. The courts have become more strict in holding employees liable. This case was a change of attitude towards vicarious liability. Irving v. The Post Office 1987 Court of Appeal A postman wrote something discriminating on a letter for his neighbour. The post office was not responsible. Although a postman has the right to write something on the letters, it's his problem if he steps out of bounds. This was a change in attitude again in favour of the employers. Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co. 1862 A bus driver racing to a stop to collect passengers deliberately obstructed the driver of a bus of a rival company, overturning the latter's vehicle. The bus driver had been given instructions against obstructing other buses. The defendants were liable. The driver was acting within the course of his employment at the time; it was immaterial whether his act was forbidden. Profit for the company when the bus is first (more passengers).

Otherwise, companies could exculpate themselves simply by prohibiting their servants from committing any torts during their service. Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Ltd. 1957 A father directed his son parking a lorry, but by negligence of the son, the father was injured. The son was the employee of the company. The company sued the son for the full money they had to pay in damages. They succeded. Mostly employers do not sue their employees but it can be done. Lloyd v. Grace, Smith and Co. 1912 The plaintiff wished to sell some cottages and went to the solicitors. Their managing clerk induced the plaintiff to transfer the cottages to him and misappropriated certain mortgage money. The plaintiff sued the employers. The solicitors were liable to the client for the fraud of the managing clerk though it was committed solely for his benefit. Market Investigations v. Minister of Social Security 1969 An interviewer: - had flexible working hours - did not get holidays and sick-pay - could work for other people. She was considered an employee. Massey v. Crown Life Insurance 1978 Court of Appeal A man chose to be self-employed, because he would have to pay less in taxes. When he was sacked he claimed that he was an employee. He made his bed and laid on it so he was a self-employed. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins & Griffiths (Liverpool) Ltd. 1947 The appellants hired out a crane to the respondents for the purpose of unloading a ship; they also provided a driver for this crane upon the terms that he should be for the duration of the contract 'the servant of the hirers'. In fact although the respondents supervised this man's work, they had no power of control over his actual management of the machine. Through negligent handling of it he injured someone. The defendant was liable. The right of ultimate control over the driver's management of the crane was theirs. It lies upon the general employer to establish that the vicarious responsibility has been shifted from his shoulders to those of the special employer. Principle: in the case that one employer lends a servant to another it depends on whichever of the two had the right of control over the servant's activities at the time the injury was caused.

Morgans v. Launchbury 1973 House of Lords A husband used his wife's car; it was ensured by the wife. The wife said, 'If you get drunk, get a friend to drive you'. He asked his friend, his friend did not want to. So he drove the car himself and had an accident, both he and his friend were killed and some people were injured. The man was not an agent. He did not do something specific for his wife. It would be the same if he had used it for work (only if he was doing something specific his wife asked him to do). Husband and wife are not necessarily agent and principal. Ormrod v. Crossville Motor Service 1953 A car should be transported to Monte Carlo by an agent. The driver's negligence caused an accident. The principal was responsible for this accident in the course of a principal-agent-relationship. Even if it was partly for the agent's benefit. Poland v. John Parr and Sons 1927 An employee, going home to have lunch, saw a lorry belonging to his firm off which a boy wanted to steal sugar. He pushed the boy off the lorry and injured him badly. The company was held liable. No duty to act in favour of the employer but if the employee does it, the employer is responsible. The employee did not act out of proportion, otherwise he would be responsible (only used his hands). Ready Mix Concrete v. Minister of Pensions 1968 The company wanted greater productivity but also save the lorries, so they created owner-drivers. The company had a high degree of control: - the drivers bought the lorries on hire-purchase from within this company - no alteration to the vehicle without the companies' permission - they had to carry out all reasonable orders as if they were employed. They were held self-employed. The drivers owned the tools and paid the rates. Rose v. Plenty 1976 Court of Appeal Children were helping the milk men. A boy was injured.

The company was responsible. They had a benefit out of the boy's work (the milk comes earlier). Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison v. McDonald 1952 Contract of service; employer-employee-relationship: the employer says what and how to do it. Contract of services: the employer says what to do; independent contractor. 'Business integration test'. Problem: is the person fully integrated or only an accessory? Lord Denning brought up this question, but he was not the only one who found it relevant. Storey v. Ashton 1869 A driver took a different route to make a frolic of his own. On this way he caused an accident because of his negligence. No liability of the company. Though this was just a little detour, the driver was carrying out his own business. Tarry v. Ashton 1876 The occupier of a house employed an independent contractor to repair a rotten bracket which projected over the pavement from his wall. A passerby was injured by the fallling of a lamp from the bracket. He was held liable. Where an especially high duty of care is imposed upon a person by law he cannot escape liability for the breach of that duty by employing an independent contractor. Warren v. Menly's Garage 1948 An attendant thought the customer was trying to leave without paying. The customer paid and wanted to got to the police to sue the attendant because of false accusation. The attendant hit the customer. This action was not within the course of the employment (not part of his work). Whatman v. Pearson 1868 An employee was not to go home for lunch. He went home with the horse of the company. While being there the horse ran free and caused an accident. The employer was responsible. No different journey with the horse. Williams v. Hemptill 1966 House of Lords

Coming home from a camp, the boyscouts told the busdriver to take another route (accident). The company was responsible. The busdriver did it not for himself but only because the boys told him this. Young and Woods v. West 1980 A metal worker was officially 'self-employed', so he got an extra L 500 per year. He was sacked and claimed to be an employee. He was held an employee (but lost the tax advantage, in contrast to the case before).