Vicarious Liability in Tort, Study notes of Law

Download Vicarious Liability in Tort and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Vicarious Liability in

Tort

Question:

Describe the concept of vicarious liability and explain the rationale for this concept. Illustrate your answer with 2 decided cases.

Question 2 Law 087

Circumstances

 Consider the circumstances in which one person will

be liable for the torts of another, even though

he (the person liable) is not a party to the tort or

did not himself commit the tort in question.

 Example ;

A is liable to C for damage or injury suffered by C

due to the tort committed by B

Who Is A

Servant?

Requirements

 Wrongful/Tortious Act;

 Special relationship between person alleged to be

vicariously liable and the tortfeasor that is recognized by law;

 Tort committed within the course employment

For Example;

Justification/Rationale of this concept

The rationale are;

 The master must have been negligent in;

a) Employing negligent servant b) Failing to control his servant

 Master benefits from employee’s work, so he should bear the responsibility for tortious act by employee

 Master have greater fund to compensate third party

 The employer usually not individual but enterprise so they can spread

the loss, plus, they have insurance coverage

Cases

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 strict instruction against obstructing other buses.

Held:

That defendants (LGOC) were liable. The driver was acting within the course of his employment at that time. It was immaterial whether his act is forbidden.

Cases

Beard v. London General Omnibus Co. (1900)

A bus conductor drove a bus in London and negligently

collided with plaintiff. The conductor was not authorized

to drive the bus.

Held:

That the servant was not acting within the scope of

employment. Accordingly the claim against the employer

failed.

Cases

Lister v. Ramford Ice and Cold Storage Co. Ltd. (1957)

Lister, a lorry driver employed by the company reversed his

lorry negligently and knocked down his father who was also employed by the company. The father recovered damages from the company which was held for vicariously liable for

the torts of its servant, Lister. The insurers for the company paid the amount and thereupon sued Lister, in the name of

the company, for an indemnity

Held; inter alia :

That Lister had broken his obligation to the company to take

reasonable care in the performance of his duties and the company could recover on an indemnity