Continue reading "Vicarious Liability: Lessons from three recent cases"
This post is only available to members.
Vicarious Liability: Lessons from three recent cases
Rachel Farr considers when an employer is liable for the actions of its employees ‘An act might appear unconnected with an employee’s work but, taking the context and circumstances in which it occurred into account, it may be seen as incidental to, and within the scope of, employment.’ An employer is liable for the torts …
Cases Referenced
Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.
- Attorney General of the British Virgin Islands v Hartwell (British Virgin Islands) [2004] UKPC 12
- Cox v Ministry of Justice [2014] EWCA Civ 132; [2016] UKSC 10
- Fennelly v Connex South Eastern Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 5568
- Gravil v Carroll & anor [2008] EWCA Civ 689
- JGE v The Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust [2011] EWHC 2871 (QB); [2012] EWCA Civ 938
- Joel v Morison [1834] EWHC KB J39
- Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22
- Majrowski v Guys and St Thomas NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34
- Mattis v Pollock [2002] EWHC 2177; [2003] EWCA Civ 887
- Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets [2014] EWCA Civ 116; [2016] UKSC 11
- N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2006] EWHC 3041
- Vaickuviene v J Sainsbury plc [2012] CSOH 69; [2013] CSIH 67
- Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd; Wallbank v Wallbank Fox Designs Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 25
- Wilson v Exel UK Ltd t/a Exel [2010] ScotsCS CSIH 35