Vicarious liability

Vicarious liability

Nature and operation of vicarious liability

Broadly, by virtue of the doctrine of vicarious liability, an employer is liable for an employee’s negligent actions if they were committed in the course or scope of the employee’s employment or are closely connected with what the employee is authorised by the employer to do.

It is referred to as ‘vicarious liability’ as the actual breach of duty is that of the employee. It is often said that the employer’s liability is strict; the employer is fixed with liability without any requirement of proof that there was any breach of duty on its part.

Although the majority of cases in which vicarious liability is alleged to attach will arise from the negligent act of an employee, the doctrine is not restricted to the employer/employee relationship. To succeed in a claim against a defendant based on its vicarious liability, the claimant must satisfy the following two-stage test:

•
stage one: the relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor was one of employment or ‘akin to employment’
•
stage two (the ‘close connection’ test): was the wrongful conduct so closely connected with acts that the tortfeasor

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Court of Appeal guidance on class actions, lead claims, global claims and disclosure (Alame v Shell)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has given guidance on the proper procedure for group litigation on environmental issues. Allowing the claimants’ appeal against a decision requiring the claim to be pleaded as a ‘global’ or ‘all-or-nothing’ claim, the court held this was a ‘paradigm example’ of litigation which should be progressed by lead cases. The court also highlighted the importance of disclosure in placing parties on an ‘equal footing’. While the court should be alert to disallow ‘fishing expeditions’ on disclosure, it is a powerful tool for achieving justice in cases where there is a significant asymmetry of information. Written by Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge lawyer at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.

Claim for credit hire not defeated by lack of MOT (Ali v HSF Logistics Polska Sp ZOO)

Personal injury and clinical negligence analysis: This is the first time the Court of Appeal has considered the situation where credit hire charges are claimed following a road traffic collision damaging the claimant’s vehicle, yet the claimant’s damaged vehicle did not hold a valid MOT certificate at the time of the collision. Previous County Court decisions, and one Irish High Court decision, have held that such credit hire claims are unrecoverable based on illegality and/or causation arguments. In a rare second appeal, the Court of Appeal took a different view to the lower courts and allowed the credit hire charges to be recovered. It considered that the fact that the car did not have a valid MOT certificate did not prevent damages being recovered for loss of use. Further, it would be disproportionate to bar the claim on the grounds of illegality. Written by Jasmine Murphy, barrister, at Gatehouse Chambers.

ACSO criticises government's response to medical reporting process consultation

The Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) has expressed concern over the government's protracted response to the 2023 consultation on revisions to the medical reporting process for road traffic accident claims. The government plans to implement inflationary increases to fixed costs medical reports in 2025, marking an 11-year gap since fees were last set in 2014. ACSO highlights the detrimental impact on the medico-legal sector, noting a significant decrease in medical reporting organisations due to commercial challenges. The organisation criticises the inconsistency in reviewing fixed fees across civil justice, emphasising the resulting difficulties for firms in planning and investment. ACSO calls for the ongoing motor insurance taskforce to address these issues and consider the imbalance between defendant insurers and consumer representatives created by fixed costs.

Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—1 November 2024

The minutes of the CPR Committee (CPRC) meeting of 1 November 2024 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including the Law Commission consultation on the law of contempt, Closed Material Procedure, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the outcome of the Workplace Claims consultation and costs budgeting light.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News