LAWS 204- vicarious liability part 2

Front

How does the doctrine of dual vicarious liability differ from ordinary vicarious liability? Why?

Back

In the case of Thermal, the court held that unlike normal vicarious liability, dual vicarious liability isn't concerned with the level of control that the principal had over the agent. Instead the assessment for the courts in such cases is assessing the level of engagement that the employee had with his two employers. If it is equal then it may be reasonable to hold that both of the two employers be held liable for vicarious liability.

Front

What were the material facts in the case of Christian Bros?

Back

The Catholic Church wasn't a traditional company that formed employment contracts with it's workers, instead the workers were merley bound by religious pacts. It did not pay them in the traditional sense, instead the workers would attain payment for their services from the school, which would then be transferred over to a charitable trust from which the workers would derive living expenses. However, the church's mission was progressed further by the workers actions, and the principal did order that such tasks be completed by the workers.

Front

What did the court ultimately hold in the case of Christian Bros? Why?

Back

The court held that principals in agreements kindred to employment contracts, are able to be held vicariously liable, for the harm that their agent has caused. This is because of the policy justifications to which Lord Phillips referred to.

Front

How did the case of Cox build upon this principle of law?

Back

In the case of Cox, the court broadened the principal's scope of liability to include cases in which their agent has caused harm that is not merely confined to the strict threshold of child abuse, but also encompasses any type of substantial harm that the agent may have caused, due to his negligence, for which the principal may be vicariously liable, if the agreement is akin to an employment contract!

Front

What were the material facts in the case of Armes?

Back

Even though the public service agency did not create a traditional employment contract, with the step guardians of Armes, it was still a relationship akin to employment, because of the fact that there was inspection, selection, and training of the step-parents/ agents. There was payment in exchange for the step-parents' services, and resources were provided to them, akin to an employer and an employee relationship. *Check last material fact on this lecture slide, as I did not get the time to paraphrase it.

Front

What did the court hold in the case of Armes? Why?

Back

The court held that the relationship between the agency and the step guardians was akin to an employment contract, and therefore, the agency were liable for vicarious liability. This is because the handling of children, directly benefited the agencies mission, and by tasking the agents with safeguarding children, the agency accumulated the risk of the children suffering abuse at the hands of the agent.

Front

What were the material facts in the case of Barclays Banks?

Back

The 'agent' of Barclays Bank was a medical professional who was more akin to an independent contractor than a traditional employee of a company. This is because he could reject the Bank's request to medically clear it's interns. Moreover, because the doctor worked from home and was in possession of a list, of numerous other bodies, for which he could choose to work for, it did not matter that the bank paid the doctor in exchange for his services.

Front

What did the court hold in the case of Barclays bank? Why?

Back

The court held that the principle of law decided in the case of Christian Bros, was based on the closeness of connection between an agents misconduct and the tasks set upon him by the agency, and not because of any policy justifications. Because the agent in this case was self employed and not a traditional employee, his actions could not be traced down to the tasks that the agency set upon him and therefore Barclays Bank were held to be indemnified from picking up the medical professionals vicarious liability.

Front

What is the second criteria to meet in order to bring a successful claim for vicarious liability?

Back

The negligent act has to be within the course of the agent's employment.

Front

What does this mean?

Back

This means that if the principal has explicitly tasked the agent with a tortious misconduct, or if the agent has committed a tortious misconduct with the objective of completing his non-tortious tasks, then any harm that the plaintiff suffers as a result of the agent's actions can be said as being within the scope of the agent's employment.