Vicarious Liability of Employers under Employment Law
Vicarious Liability of Employers under Employment Law
What is Vicarious Liability?
Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine under employment law where an employer is held responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions of their employees, committed in the course of employment. This means the employer can be liable even if they did not directly commit the wrongful act.
Why Does Vicarious Liability Exist?
To ensure victims can claim compensation from financially responsible parties.
To encourage employers to supervise employees and prevent misconduct.
To place liability on employers who benefit from the activities of their employees.
Key Elements for Vicarious Liability
For an employer to be vicariously liable, two main elements must be proven:
Existence of an Employment Relationship: The wrongdoer must be an employee (not an independent contractor).
The Wrongful Act Must Occur ‘In the Course of Employment’: The wrongful act or omission must be closely connected to the employee’s duties.
Employment Relationship vs. Independent Contractor
Employers are not generally liable for acts of independent contractors.
The distinction depends on the level of control, integration into the business, and other factors defining the relationship.
What is ‘In the Course of Employment’?
The wrongful act must be committed while the employee is performing their duties or engaging in activities reasonably incidental to their employment.
Acts outside the scope of employment generally do not attract vicarious liability.
Case Law Illustrations
1. Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd (2001)
Facts: An employee of a boarding school sexually abused children in his care.
Held: The House of Lords held the employer vicariously liable because the wrongful acts were closely connected to the employee’s duties.
Significance: Established the “close connection” test, broadening vicarious liability to include wrongful acts closely linked to employment, even if the acts were unauthorized.
2. Mohamud v. WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (2016)
Facts: An employee assaulted a customer at a supermarket.
Held: The Supreme Court held the employer vicariously liable because the assault arose out of the employee’s duties of dealing with customers.
Significance: Reaffirmed that liability depends on whether the wrongful act is sufficiently connected to the employee’s job.
3. Twine v. Beans Express Ltd (1946)
Facts: An employee gave a lift to a hitchhiker against company rules, and the hitchhiker was injured.
Held: The employer was not liable because giving lifts was outside the scope of employment.
Significance: Demonstrated that acts outside employment duties do not attract vicarious liability.
Limitations and Defenses
Employers can argue the employee was acting outside the scope of employment.
If the employee was an independent contractor, vicarious liability generally does not apply.
Employers are not liable for employees’ intentional criminal acts, unless closely connected to employment duties (see Lister case).
Summary
Vicarious liability holds employers accountable for employees' wrongful acts committed during employment.
It applies only when there is an employment relationship and the act is committed in the course of employment.
The courts use tests like “close connection” to decide if the act was related to employment.
Case law has expanded vicarious liability beyond strictly authorized acts to wrongful acts closely connected to employment duties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments