Chapter 9 Self-test questions

. Vicarious liability is a form of primary liability.

True

False

. Which of the following is not a justification for vicarious liability?

The employer is most likely to be insured against the loss.

The employer is taken to have been negligent.

The employer will have the benefit of the activity or business so must also bear the risks associated.

The employer is most able to exercise care over the way the enterprise is operated.

. Which test used to determine whether there is an employment relationship is most likely to be of assistance in the 21^st century?

The 'control' test.

The 'economic reality' test.

The 'integration' test.

. Viasystems v Thermal Transfer is an important 2005 case on vicarious liability. Why is it so significant?

Because it dealt with the rare instance of a sub-contracted employee.

Because the court decided that dual vicarious liability is legally impossible.

Because the court held that there had been no negligence on the part of the employee.

Because the court decided that dual vicarious liability is legally possible.

. In Morgans v Launchbury the defendant was not held vicariously liable as a principal.

True

False

. Which one of the factors below is not required in order to establish vicarious liability?

An employment relationship.

A proven negligence action against the employee.

A tort.

That the employee be acting in the course of employment.

. In which of the following cases was the employee held to be acting within the course of employment?

Harvey v RG O'Dell Ltd

Storey v Ashton

Twine v Bean's Express

Hilton v Thomas Burton

. What was the legally significant distinction between Rose v Plenty and Twine v Bean's Express?

The fact that the employee in Twine was not acting against an express prohibition.

The fact the injured party in Rose was a child.

The fact that the unauthorised passenger in Rose was assisting the employee in furthering the employer's business.

. Which of the statements below is not true regarding Lister v Hesley Hall?

It overruled the decision in Trotman v North Yorkshire CC.

The 'close connection' test was adopted.

The Salmond test was applied to the question of course of employment.

The defendant employer was held to be vicariously liable for the torts of the warden.

. Criminal conduct is never held to be in the course of employment for the purposes of vicarious liability.

True

False

. Ali is employed as a doorman at the Happy Hour club, owned by Vicky King. One night he is taunted by Damien, who is leaving the club in a drunk and aggressive state. Ali went back into the club, grabbed a bottle and ran down the street chasing Damien and finally hit him on the head. Damien has a fractured skull. What advice would you give Vicky on the likelihood of her being held to be vicariously liable for Ali's tort?

According to Mattis v Pollock Ali will be held to be acting outside the course of employment and so Vicky will not be vicariously liable.

According to Mattis v Pollock Ali will be held to be acting within the course of employment, and Vicky would then be vicariously liable.

According to Mattis v Pollock Ali was acting properly in self-defence and so no tort occurred.

. The employee in Majrowski Guy's and Thomas's NHS Trust was alleged to have committed which tort?

Breach of statutory duty.

Battery.

Negligence.

Nuisance.

Quiz Content