• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

That wrongdoers should be liable for their own actions is a fundamental principle on which the law of tort is based. Critically analyze how to concept of vicarious liability might seem to contradict this principle and explain why.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

That wrongdoers should be liable for their own actions is a fundamental principle on which the law of tort is based. Critically analyze how to concept of vicarious liability might seem to contradict this principle and explain why. The law of tort is based on the principle that tortfeasor should be held liable for their own acts that caused harm to another. However, Vicarious Liability contradicts this principle, they hold another person liable for the acts that the tortfeasor has done, even though he may not even know that act has been done. This seems to be very unfair but in reality there are a few reasons why this is necessary. For someone to be vicariously liable for the acts of another there must be a relationship between both parties- this justifies giving the latter responsibility for the acts of the former. In order to decide whether vicarious liability applies in a particular situation, the cout would have to address two questions: was the person who committed the tort an employee of the defendant and was the tort committed in the course of that person?s employment? If this two conditions are satisfied only can another person be held jointly liable for the acts of another. In the case of Ready Mixer Concrete v Minister of Pensions, the claimants were lorry drivers who did work for the defendants manufacturing company. ...read more.

Middle

In Bayler v Manchester Railway Co, the railway porter pulled the claimant off the train by force, thinking that he was on the wrong train. The porter was merely trying to do what he was authorized to do, even though he was doing it so badly as to have completely the opposite effect. An employer may attempt to expressly prohibit an act to limit the responsibility that they would have over the employees. However this is only limited to the scope of the job itself and not to how the job is done. In Limpus v London general Omnibus Co a bus driver had been given written instructions not to race with the other buses. He disobeyed this order and caused a collision with the claimant?s bus which damaged it. He was doing an act which he was authorized to do. Driving the bus in such a way to promote the defendant?s business. He was within the course of his employment even though the way he was doing th job was quite improper and had been prohibited. Vicarious Liability should be imposed because sometimes the employers are the ones with the financial resources. They have ?deeper pockets? and are more likely to be insured. Many employers are large companies ?placing liability on them means losses can be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices. ...read more.

Conclusion

liability on employers encourages them to take care to prevent work practices that could result in accidents there could be a temptation for employers to turn a blind eye especially if the practices have a benefit to themselves, if they knew liability would be restricted to the employee. The employers will not be liable if the employees have committed a tort that is considered a ?frolic of their own? Hence this can be seen that it is not a complete liability that the employers have. An employer will not be responsible for acts done by employees which have nothing to do with their employment. The employee?s job may provide them the opportunity to commit the wrongful act. They may do so during work time, or using the employers equipment, but without a connection there can be no vicarious liability. In heasman Clarity Cleaning Co the employee of a cleaning contractoir was employed to clean telephones, and while doing so used the phones to make long distance calls from client?s premise. Theywere not vicariously liable, the unauthorized use of the phone was not connected with cleaning it and could not be regarded as cleaning it in an unauthorized manner. ________________ That wrongdoers should be liable for their own actions is a fundamental principle on which the law of tort is based. Critically analyze how to concept of vicarious liability might seem to contradict this principle and explain why. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

    Perhaps the major instance of liability being imposed without fault in tort can be found in the area of vicarious liability. This is when one person is held liable for the tort of another person. This was a practical mechanism established to find someone who was able to pay for

  2. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    Marx enveloped ace_16k's functionalism theory. Caldwell recklessness again involves the inadvertent taking of a risk, which a reasonable person would not take. Again, the level of risk is high and the potential for harm serious. This test has been considerably restricted in recent years.

  1. Types of Tort Law and Relevant Cases.

    Tort laws often result in civil lawsuits. There are two types of tort: The first type is intentional, these are offences which are committed by a person who actually intended to cause harm on another person. In this case intent is proven if the person who will commit tort knows

  2. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    In Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English (1938) Lord Wright stated that the duty required the provision of a competent staff of men, adequate material, and proper system and effective supervision'. Later cases have included a requirement to provide a safe place of work.

  1. Discuss the meaning of fault on the basis for criminal liability. Explain and evaluate ...

    In repscted of Absolute liability, the defendant can be convicted of this type of offence, even if they have no control over their conduct. For example in Winzar V Chief constable of Kent, the D was drunk in hospital, so the police escorted him out and they then arrested him for being drunk on the highway.

  2. Occupiers Liability Act Case Study - Consider the theme parks potential liability in tort ...

    In the case of Perry v Butlin Holiday World, the occupiers should be more aware of children?s behaviour and take extra precautions to protect children from harm.

  1. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    parties, it is owed to definite persons In the case of tort a contract is not involved, but this does not mean an individual or company cannot be held accountable for their actions. The injured individual cannot file for a contractual liability claim, but he can make a file for a tortuous claim.

  2. Introduction to Torts

    Asai (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 926, 931, 237 Cal.Rptr. 718, quoting Boynton v. McKales (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 777, 789, 294 P.2d 733; see also Trejo v. Maciel, supra, at p. 495, 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 [when on a special errand the employee is in the course and scope of employment for the

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work