Self-test questions: Vicarious Liability

* not completed

. Vicarious liability is an exception to which general principle?

An occupier is liable for actions which occur within their property. correct incorrect

Liability for personal injury is limited to physical injuries. correct incorrect

A public body can be held liable for the wrongs of an employee. correct incorrect

An employer can be held liable for the wrongs of an employee. correct incorrect

The law of tort does not generally hold a person liable for the wrongs of a third party. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Julia is an independent plumber working for MaxCo (a building company) to fit the bathrooms in a new house. Julia works on her own, without oversight from MaxCo staff, she provides her own equipment and materials which she charges MaxCo for as part of the contract, and she takes the profit from her work. Julia does this work negligently, leading to leaks from a shower which cause considerable damage. Is MaxCo liable for Julia's negligence?

MaxCo is liable as Julia was working on their job as an employee. correct incorrect

MaxCo is liable as they have a responsibility to oversee the work of all tradespeople on their site. correct incorrect

MaxCo is not liable as Julia is an independent contractor. correct incorrect

MaxCo is not liable as the damage is too remote. correct incorrect

MaxCo is not liable as Julia's breach of duty is their responsibility. correct incorrect

* not completed

. What were the elements of the fourfold test for determining whether an employer is liable for the negligence of another, the so-called Commercial Risk Factors in Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions & National Insurance [1968]?

Control, ownership of tools, chance of profits & risk of loss. correct incorrect

Control, absence of control, chance of profits & risk of loss. correct incorrect

Control, absence of control, ownership of tools, ownership of vehicles. correct incorrect

Control, wearing a uniform, ownership of tools, ownership of vehicles. correct incorrect

Control, wearing a uniform, ownership of tools, chance of profits. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Andrew, a clergyman is facing allegations of battery in relation to Betty during a church service. The Church as an organisation argues that he is not employed by the Church therefore they are not vicarious liable, whereas Betty argues that he ought to be treated as an employee for the purpose of vicarious liability. Which is the correct statement of law?

Andrew is not an employee, so the Church is not vicariously liable for his actions. correct incorrect

Andrew is an independent contractor, so the Church is not vicariously liable for his actions. correct incorrect

Andrew is solely responsible for his actions as an autonomous individual, so the Church is not vicariously liable for his actions. correct incorrect

Andrew is in a position akin to employment, so the Church is vicariously liable for his actions. correct incorrect

Andrew is an employee, so the Church is is vicariously liable for his actions. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Esme is a prisoner serving a sentence. She works in the prison library for 10 hours a week. She negligently stacks books in a pile on a shelf and they topple over and injure Chloe the prison librarian. Can Chloe sue the prison service/Ministry of Justice?

Yes, Chloe can sue the prison service as they were negligent in getting a prisoner to work in the library, and therefore primarily liable for the injuries. correct incorrect

Yes, Chloe is an employee, so the prison service is vicariously liable for her actions. correct incorrect

Yes, Chloe is in a relationship akin to employment, so the prison service is vicariously liable for her actions. correct incorrect

No, Chloe is an independent contractor, so the prison service is not vicariously liable for her actions. correct incorrect

No, Chloe is not in any relationship of employment or akin to employment, so the prison service is not vicariously liable for her actions. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which is the full and correct statement of law to establish when a defendant will be vicariously liable for the act of another?

There is an employer/employee relationship between the defendant and tortfeasor, and the tortfeasor committed the tortious act while acting in the course of their employment. correct incorrect

There is an employer/employee relationship or one akin to employment between the defendant and tortfeasor, and the tortfeasor committed the tortious act while acting in the course of their employment. correct incorrect

There is an employer/employee relationship or one akin to employment between the defendant and tortfeasor. correct incorrect

There is an employer/employee relationship or one akin to employment between the defendant and claimant, and the tortfeasor committed the tortious act while acting in the course of their employment. correct incorrect

There is an employer/employee relationship or one akin to employment between the claimant and defendant, and the tortfeasor committed the tortious act while acting in the course of their employment. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Wendy was a foster carer for children in the care of the local authority for a number of years. Wendy perpetrated physical and emotional abuse towards the children in her care. The local authority was not negligent in the selection or supervision of Wendy as a foster carer. Are the local authority liable for the abuse perpetrated by Wendy towards the children?

Wendy is an employee, so the local authority are vicariously liable for her actions. correct incorrect

Wendy is in a position akin to employment, so the local authority are vicariously liable for her actions. correct incorrect

Wendy is responsible for her actions as an individual, and the local authority are not vicariously liable for her actions, but they do have a non-delegable duty of care which will make them liable on these facts. correct incorrect

Wendy is an independent contractor, so the local authority are not vicariously liable for her actions. correct incorrect

Wendy is not an employee, so the local authority are not vicariously liable for her actions. correct incorrect

* not completed

. In the area of vicarious liability, what was the key principle which comes from the decision of Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd [2006] ?

A person may be regarded as the employee of more than one organisation in the context of vicarious liability. correct incorrect

The control test for determining the employment relationship is no longer decisive. correct incorrect

The development of the "akin to employment" test where a person was clearly not an employee. correct incorrect

An employer is only liable if the employee was acting within the course or scope of his employment. correct incorrect

A tea break or lunch break forms part of the working day, so falls within the course of employment. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Dina is a taxi driver who gets fares using a mobile phone app run by Tuber. Whilst driving she crashes into Suzi a pedestrian, injuring her. Dina does not have car insurance. Can Suzi bring a claim against Tuber being vicariously liable for Dina's actions?

No, Dina is not an employee, so Tuber are not vicariously liable for her negligent actions. correct incorrect

No, Dina is an independent contractor, so Tuber are not vicariously liable for her negligent actions. correct incorrect

Yes, Dina is an employee, so Tuber are vicariously liable for her negligent actions. correct incorrect

Yes, Dina is in a position akin to employment, so Tuber are vicariously liable for her actions. correct incorrect

No, Dina is not in any relationship of employment or akin to employment, so Tuber are not vicariously liable for her actions. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Federico is a labourer employed by BuildCo. He is building a wall, as instructed, for part of a building extension and carries on into his lunch break to do so. Unfortunately he builds it negligently and it subsequently collapses causing damage to the neighbouring property. BuildCo try to argue that they should not be held liable for Federico's actions. Which is the correct statement of law?

Buildco are liable for Federico's actions as he is an employee and they are therefore responsible for all of his actions. correct incorrect

Buildco are liable for Federico's actions as he is an employee and the wall is built within the course of his employment. correct incorrect

Buildco are not liable for Federico's actions as whilst he is an employee, they are not responsible for work done in his lunch break. correct incorrect

Buildco are not liable for Federico's actions as whilst he is an employee, they are not responsible for work done in his lunch break as it falls outside the course of his employment. correct incorrect

Buildco are not liable for Federico's actions as whilst he is an employee, they are not responsible for work done in his lunch break as it exceeds the scope of his ordinary duties. correct incorrect

* not completed

. The Supreme Court in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] considered the question of the circumstances in which a Defendant will be liable for the tortious act of their employee in the course of their employment. What tests did Lord Toulson establish in this case?

1) What the function or field of activities was and 2) whether there was a sufficient connection between the position in which he was employed and the wrongful conduct to make it right for the employer to be held liable. correct incorrect

1) What the range of activities was and 2) whether there was a sufficient connection between the position in which he was employed and the wrongful conduct to make it right for the employer to be held liable. correct incorrect

1) What the function or field of activities was and 2) whether there was a sufficient financial connection between the employee and employer to make it right for the employer to be held liable. correct incorrect

1) What the function or field of activities was and 2) whether the employed person was on a frolic of their own or acting upon the employer's instructions. correct incorrect

1) What the range of activities was and 2) whether the employed person was on a frolic of their own or acting upon the employer's instructions. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Can an employer be held liable where an employee has acted in an intentional manner, such that it could give rise to criminal liability?

No, the intentional nature of the employee's act acts as a novus actus interveniens and prevents the employer being held vicariously liable. correct incorrect

No, the law on vicarious liability only applies to negligent or unintentional acts and does not extend to intentional torts (eg. Trespass to the person). correct incorrect

No, the intentional nature of the employee's act takes it outside the field of activities that they are employed to carry out. correct incorrect

Yes, an employer can be liable for the intentional act of an employee if they did not take reasonable care in hiring them. correct incorrect

Yes, an employer can be liable for the intentional act of an employee if the act occurred within the field of activities they were employed to do and if there is a sufficiently close connection between the act and their position. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Elsa is the managing director of a company and attends the annual company summer party. She is drinking heavily and gets into an argument with Krissy another employee. The party comes to an end, but many of the employees head to an after-party at the hotel where they were staying, the argument starts up again and Elsa punches Krissy causing her serious injuries. Is the company vicariously liable for Elsa's act?

Yes, the company can be vicariously liable as the concept of employment can be flexible and include work organised social events. correct incorrect

Yes, the company can be vicariously liable as they are responsible for all acts of an employee. correct incorrect

No, the act occurred outside the place of work, and is therefore not within the scope of her employment. correct incorrect

No, the intentional nature of Elsa's act, acts as a novus actus interveniens and prevents the employer being held vicariously liable. correct incorrect

No, the intentional nature of Elsa's act takes it outside the field of activities that she is employed to carry out. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Felicity is a delivery driver for WineGlass a wine delivery company. Felicity has multiple delivery drops on her route in her work van, but takes a 10 mile detour over lunch to visit her grandmother. On the way back to return to her route she crashes into another vehicle causing injuries to the driver and damage to the vehicle. Is WineGlass vicariously liable for Felicity's act?

Yes, Felicity's field of activities is driving and she is driving her employer's vehicle, so they are vicariously liable for her actions. correct incorrect

Yes, Felicity is driving the vehicle back to work, which is equivalent to driving between work places, so they are vicariously liable for her actions. correct incorrect

No, the act occurred outside the place of work, and is therefore not within the scope of her employment. correct incorrect

No, the visit to and from Felicity's grandmother is an independent journey not within the scope of her employment. correct incorrect

Yes, they are responsible for all acts of their employee, Felicity. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Theo is employed as a bouncer at Rage nightclub, he wears a branded uniform. One night he gets into a dispute with a customer Phil in the queue, and he goes home to get a baseball bat, returning with it and beating Phil causing him serious injuries. Phil sues the nightclub. Are Rage nightclub vicariously liable for the acts of their employee Theo.

Yes, the nightclub is vicariously liable for all acts of the employee whilst wearing the uniform. correct incorrect

Yes, the assault occurs within the field of activities that Theo is employed to do, namely keeping order in the club, so the nightclub is vicariously liable. correct incorrect

No, Theo's return home to get the baseball bat breaks the chain of causation, preventing the nightclub from being vicariously liable for his actions. correct incorrect

No, the intentional nature of Theo's acts takes them outside the ambit of the nightclub's responsibility. correct incorrect

No, the deliberate assault is not within the field of activities for which Theo is employed, so the nightclub is not vicariously liable. correct incorrect