How Much Do You Know About Vicarious Liability? Trivia Quiz

Lister v Hesley Hall is the correct answer because it is a landmark case that established the principle that there must be a sufficient connection between the intentional tort and the employment relationship. In this case, the House of Lords held that the employer was vicariously liable for the actions of an employee who sexually abused children in his care, even though the abuse was not within the scope of his employment. This case expanded the scope of vicarious liability and set a precedent for holding employers responsible for intentional torts committed by their employees.

In the case of Rose v Plenty, it was established that if an employer prohibits certain conduct, for it to be considered within the course of employment, there must be a benefit derived from it. This means that if an employee engages in prohibited conduct, but it benefits the employer in some way, it can be considered as part of their job responsibilities. This ruling emphasizes the importance of the employer's explicit prohibition and the presence of a benefit in determining whether an employee's actions fall within the scope of their employment.

Smith v Stages is the correct answer because it is the case that established the principle that traveling to and from work is considered outside the course of employment. This means that any injuries or accidents that occur during the commute to and from work are generally not covered by workers' compensation or other employment-related benefits.

Yewen v Noakes is the case that established the control test, which states that an employer has control over how work is done. In this case, the court ruled that the employer had the right to control and direct the work of the employee, indicating that the employer held the dominant position in the employment relationship. This decision set a precedent for future cases involving the determination of employer control over work methods and established an important principle in employment law.

According to the case of Storey v Ashton, detours are considered to be outside the course of employment. This means that if an employee deviates from their assigned tasks or takes a different route that is not authorized by their employer, any actions or incidents that occur during this detour would not be considered as part of their employment. Therefore, if an employee gets into an accident or causes harm to someone while on a detour, it would not be the responsibility of the employer as it falls outside the scope of their employment.

In the case of Poland v Parr, it was established that violence could be considered within the course of employment if it was not serious and if it was done to protect the employer's property. This means that if an employee uses force or violence to safeguard the employer's assets or belongings from potential harm or theft, it can be seen as a legitimate action within the scope of their job duties.

not-available-via-ai

The correct answer is Morris v Martin. In this case, the court held that if there is a personal non-delegable duty to keep something safe and it is stolen, the employer will be liable. This means that the employer cannot escape liability by delegating the duty to someone else. Martin v Morris is not the correct answer because it does not pertain to the same legal principle.

Young and Woods Ltd v West is the correct answer because this case established that an 'employment relationship' stated in a contract was only persuasive of employment, meaning that it may suggest an employment relationship but is not conclusive proof of it.

Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd is the case that held that dual responsibility will be applied where there are two employers.

The case of Lister v Hesley Hall stated that abusing at a children's home was closely connected to employment. This means that the court found that the employer, Hesley Hall, was liable for the actions of their employees who were involved in the abuse. The court recognized that the abuse was carried out within the scope of the employees' duties and that it was closely connected to their employment at the children's home. Therefore, the employer was held responsible for the actions of their employees in this case.

In the case of Century Insurance v NIRT, it was stated that the cigarette which caused the fire was incidental to the work task. This means that the employee's act of smoking was not directly related to their job duties, and therefore it would be unjust to hold the employee solely liable for the fire. Instead, the liability should be shared between the employee and the employer, as the employer had a duty to provide a safe working environment and should have taken measures to prevent such incidents from occurring.

not-available-via-ai

not-available-via-ai

Ferguson v John Dawson is a case that established the principle that the term "self-employed" is not conclusive and can be subject to interpretation. This interpretation may be done to avoid paying national insurance contributions. The case highlights that the determination of someone's employment status should consider various factors beyond just the label of being self-employed. Therefore, this case serves as a precedent for cases involving disputes over employment status and the associated tax implications.

The case of Ready Mixed Concrete stated that if an individual has the opportunity to make a profit, then they are considered self-employed. This implies that the individual has control over their own business and is responsible for managing their own finances, risks, and decisions related to their work. The case highlights the importance of profit-making as a defining characteristic of self-employment.

This answer suggests that Professor Salmond's Test is a legal principle used to determine if a tort (a civil wrong) is committed in a negligent act. According to this test, if the tort is either authorized or an unauthorized mode of an authorized act, it can be considered as a negligent act. In other words, if the act is within the scope of authority or is an unauthorized way of performing an authorized act, it can be categorized as a negligent act.

Limpus is the case where racing was initially prohibited, but it was considered to benefit the employer. As a result, it was deemed to be part of the employee's job responsibilities. This means that any actions or incidents that occurred during the racing event would fall under the scope of employment, making the employer liable for any resulting damages or injuries.

Twine v Bean's Express is the case that stated that taking passengers would be outside the course of employment if prohibited.

not-available-via-ai

In the case of Mattis v Pollock, it is stated that violence due to personal vengeance is not permitted unless encouraged by the employer. This implies that individuals cannot engage in violent actions as a form of personal revenge, unless their employer explicitly encourages or supports such behavior. The case likely provides a legal precedent or ruling that establishes this principle.

not-available-via-ai

Majrowski v. Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust was a UK court case that established the principle that a breach of a statutory duty can give rise to a claim in tort. The court held that if a statute imposes a duty on a person or organization, and that duty is intended to protect individuals from harm, then a breach of that duty can be considered a tort. Additionally, the court recognized that standards of good practice can also form the basis for a claim in tort if they are breached. Therefore, the statement in the answer is an accurate summary of what was stated in the Majrowski case.

not-available-via-ai

The given statement suggests that if an individual receives a fixed fee for their work, they are considered an employee. This implies that the person is hired by a company or organization and is compensated with a predetermined amount of money for their services. This is in contrast to being self-employed or working as a freelancer, where the payment structure may be based on other factors such as project completion or hourly rates. Therefore, the statement indicates that a fixed fee payment arrangement typically indicates an employer-employee relationship.

According to O'Kelly, the presence of an obligation to work is a necessary condition for the existence of an employment relationship. In other words, if there is no requirement or expectation for an individual to perform work, then there cannot be an employment relationship. This means that the absence of an obligation to work directly implies the absence of an employment relationship.

ST v North Yorkshire CC is the case that stated that a teacher abusing a child was so extreme that it was considered to be outside the course of employment. This implies that the teacher's actions were not within the normal scope of their job responsibilities and exceeded the boundaries of acceptable behavior. The case likely involved severe and egregious abuse that was deemed to be beyond what could be expected or tolerated in a professional educational setting.