Questions and Answers
What factor is NOT considered when determining if a tort was committed during the course of employment?
Under what conditions can a master be held vicariously liable for the torts of a servant?
In the case of Popoola v. Pan African Gas Distributors, what determined the employer's liability?
Which of the following is an example of implied authority in a master-servant relationship?
Signup and view all the answers
When is an employer NOT vicariously liable for an employee’s tort?
Signup and view all the answers
Which of the following does NOT contribute to an employer's decision-making regarding employee behavior?
Signup and view all the answers
What does the term 'scope of employment' refer to in vicarious liability?
Signup and view all the answers
Which factor best illustrates an improper manner of conducting work?
Signup and view all the answers
Under what condition can an employer set limits on the timing and location of work?
Signup and view all the answers
Study Notes
Vicarious Liability of Employers
- Courts can hold employers liable for torts committed by their servants shortly after working hours, exemplified in Ruddiman & Co. v. Smith (1889), where a clerk's negligence caused flooding.
- The clerk's act of using the washroom was deemed incidental to employment, making the employer vicariously liable.
Employee Actions Beyond Duty
- Employees acting outside their defined duties for personal or third-party benefit are considered to be on a "frolic of their own," which can absolve the employer of liability (e.g., Joel v. Morrison, 1934).
- Disobedience to an employer's express prohibition does not automatically absolve the employer from liability. Such prohibitions can influence liability considerations, but do not negate responsibility altogether.
Employer Remedies Against Employees
- Employers can seek remedies against employees for torts committed while acting within the scope of their employment.
- Possible remedies include financial deductions from salaries, disciplinary actions (warnings, suspension, termination), or criminal prosecution for personal wrongdoing.
Liability Scope in Employment Context
- An employer is generally liable for torts committed by a servant in the course of their employment, reflecting the principle that the master bears the responsibility for acts performed on their behalf.
- A master’s vicarious liability can be contested if the tort was outside the scope of the employee’s duties.
Determining Course of Employment
- Courts consider several factors to determine if a tort occurred during the course of employment:
- The express and implied authority of the employee.
- The manner in which the employee conducts their duties, including negligence or misconduct (e.g., Popoola v. Pan African Gas Distributors case).
- The authorized time and place for performing job duties; employers are liable for torts committed within specified working hours.
Conclusion
- Employers are generally responsible for the torts committed by their employees during work or reasonable time thereafter.
- Liability arises because the acts are carried out in furtherance of the employer's business, highlighting the relationship between engagement and responsibility.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Description
Test your understanding of the principles of vicarious liability regarding employers and their employees. This quiz covers key cases, including Ruddiman & Co. v. Smith and Joel v. Morrison, and explores the implications of employee actions on employer liability. Evaluate your grasp of the legal framework surrounding employer responsibilities and employee conduct.
