Vicarious Liability
A2 law: tort: Vicarious Liability Question 2-Fairness/Unfairness.
Vicarious liability arises when one party is responsible for the tort of another. This situation occurs frequently when an employer is held responsible for the torts committed by an employee. An employer can only be held responsible for the torts of an employee, not for an independent contractor.
There are also some rules that must be satisfied. First it must be proven that the tortfeaser is an employee. The act the tortfeaser (employee) carried out must be tortuous or criminal. The tortuous or criminal act must have been during the course of employment.
There are 3 tests to establish whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor these are the control test, integration test and the economic reality test, which is also known as the multiple test.
The control test analyses who has control over the way that the work is carried out. If the employer sets out how the work is to be done and when it is to be done by then the courts are more likely to consider the person carrying out the work as an employee. However, if it is up to the person carrying out the work how to determine how and when it should be done, then that person is more likely to be considered an independent contractor by the courts and is therefore responsible for their own torts. This test was applied in Mersey docks v Coggins Ltd (1947)
The integration test looks at whether the person’s work is an integral part of the business. If they are an integral part of a business for example a till worker, then they are more likely to be seen as an employee to the courts. If they are not seen as an integral part of the business for example some one who has come in to fix a till, then they will be seen by the courts as a independent contractor. This test was established in Stevenson v McDonald (1969).
The economic reality test looks at the contractual relationship between the defending two parties. An individual who has
Vicarious liability arises when one party is responsible for the tort of another. This situation occurs frequently when an employer is held responsible for the torts committed by an employee. An employer can only be held responsible for the torts of an employee, not for an independent contractor.
There are also some rules that must be satisfied. First it must be proven that the tortfeaser is an employee. The act the tortfeaser (employee) carried out must be tortuous or criminal. The tortuous or criminal act must have been during the course of employment.
There are 3 tests to establish whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor these are the control test, integration test and the economic reality test, which is also known as the multiple test.
The control test analyses who has control over the way that the work is carried out. If the employer sets out how the work is to be done and when it is to be done by then the courts are more likely to consider the person carrying out the work as an employee. However, if it is up to the person carrying out the work how to determine how and when it should be done, then that person is more likely to be considered an independent contractor by the courts and is therefore responsible for their own torts. This test was applied in Mersey docks v Coggins Ltd (1947)
The integration test looks at whether the person’s work is an integral part of the business. If they are an integral part of a business for example a till worker, then they are more likely to be seen as an employee to the courts. If they are not seen as an integral part of the business for example some one who has come in to fix a till, then they will be seen by the courts as a independent contractor. This test was established in Stevenson v McDonald (1969).
The economic reality test looks at the contractual relationship between the defending two parties. An individual who has