Hickey v McGowan & ors

Last updated
Hickey -v- McGowan & ors
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case namePádraig Hickey (Plaintiff) AND Patrick Joseph McGowan and Christopher Cosgrove(Defendant)
Decided9 February 2017
Citation(s)[2017] IESC 6;
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court
Appealed toSupreme Court
Court membership
Judges sittingDenham C.J., O'Donnell Donal J., MacMenamin J., Dunne J., Charleton J.
Case opinions
The High Court judge O'Néill J. awarded general damages of €350,000 to a Sligo-born candidate attending St. John's National School for four years. The Supreme Court applied the "Close Connection test" to determine if the first defendant was accountable for the second defendant's behaviour. The plaintiff had no recall of the occurrence until alerting the Gardai due to shock. The High Court found the first defendant guilty of sexual abuse, and the defence accused the first defendant unrepresented. The appeal agreed that the Marist Brothers were not a legal entity, and Heatons Transport Ltd. v. TGWU addressed a union's accountability for a union officer. O'Donnell J. argued for €150,000 damages split evenly, but the judgment held the first defendant further responsible.
Decision byO’Donnell J
ConcurrenceDenham C.J., MacMenamin J., Dunne J.,
DissentCharleton J.
Keywords
Sexual Abuse of Children | Vicarious liability | Statute of Limitation | Appeal | Constitution | Unincorporated Association

Hickey v McGowan & ors, [2017] IESC 6 [1] is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. This case concerns child abuse and vicarious liability. The second defendant sexually abused the plaintiff in class, in the presence of the other students. This happened at least once a week. Four boys who witnessed the abuse in the class gave evidence, which was accepted by the High Court. It was determined that there must be a "close connection" between the wrongful act and the actions that one had engaged the offender to perform in order for one to be made liable for the act of another. [2] [3]

Contents

Background

The applicant in this case was born in Sligo where he attended St John's National School for four years. The first named defendant was the Provincial of the Marist Brothers. The second defendant was his teacher for three years, who was also a member of the Marist Brothers. Over 60 pupils were in the class.

Due to his shock, the trial judge accepted that the plaintiff had no recollection of the incident before notifying the Gardai. The High Court judge O'Néill J. determined general damages to be €350,000, but the court's problem on appeal was based on the first defendant's liability, which was based on the second defendant's acts that caused plaintiff harm. The court must look at the defendants' legal standing as well as the second listed defendant's position within the school in order to take this into account. In the case of O'Keeffe v. Hickey, [4] the parish relinquished its legal responsibility for overseeing the operation of the school. The school was managed by the Marist Order. Because the principal and teachers are both Marist Brothers, the trial judge declared the school to be a Marist institution.

The trial judge came to the conclusion that the Marist Brothers were fully in charge of the school's daily management. To apply both legal analysis and fill in the providential gaps, the Trial Judge based his decision on the Supreme Court ruling in the Catholic Child Welfare Society and Ors. v. Various Claimants (FC) and Ors. [5] ("CCWS") The plaintiff did not file a lawsuit against the management, but under s. 35(1), [6] if one defendant caused the plaintiff significant harm, both defendants would be legally precluded from further action. However, the High Court judge found that the management bore only 10% of the blame. Regarding the employer-employee issue, the degree of the link between the two defendants was questioned. It was decided that a religious organisation could be made liable for any vicarious actions by a member of the order.

The Holding of the Supreme Court

O'Donnell Donal J. and Charleton J, handed down the judgement decision, it was concurred by Denham C.J.and MacMenamin J., Dunne J. The dissenting judge was Charleton J.

To decide whether the first defendant was responsible for the second defendant's behavior, the Supreme Court used the "Close Connection test". The close relationship test must be used to portray Irish law, and it appears obvious that test was satisfied in this case, according to the majority of the judgment: "the close connection test must be taken to represent the law in Ireland…it seems clear that that test was satisfied in this case. The abuse took place during the very act of teaching in the classroom". [7] The judges determined that the first defendant's responsibility also included sexual abuse. In the case of Mohamud v. WM Morrison Supermarkets plc, [8] it was decided that a company was responsible for an employee's aggressive treatment of a client. Even if the rugby players had punched each other, it was decided in Gravill v. Carroll [9] that the rugby employer was nevertheless found liable. In Wallbank v. Wallbank Fox Designs, [10] it was determined that even if the employee assaulted his boss, the employer was still found liable because the incident was closely associated to the occupation.

A religious order that had been incorporated was the subject of this case. Religious orders are a collection of organisations without a distinct legal existence. The Marist brothers and the young boys were not meant to be sexually attracted to one another. The High Court determined that defendant one was accountable for defendant two's behaviour. The defence then began accusing the first defendant without any legal representation. This association is not accountable for any crimes its members may commit because it is not incorporated. In Hay v. O'Grady, [11] McCarthy J. argued that rather than weighing conflicting evidence, the court should decide based on the law and the facts. The facts of Doyle v. Banville [12] and the court's decision there show that the second defendant was the target of the supporting credential evidence in this case. The first defendant's vicarious liability was not supported by any evidence, and there was no proof that the school's principal was bound by an official employment contract. Both sides of the appeal concurred that The Marist Brothers were not a recognised legal body.

This case differs from the CCWS case in that the CCWS brother had a legal entity with cooperative qualities, as opposed to the Marist Brothers who were composed of legal bodies. Despite the trust that supported the Marist brothers, the order is an unincorporated association, which means that it lacks a separate legal personality, [13] as demonstrated in Conservative and Unionist Central Office v. Burrell. [14] The Marist Brothers have characteristics of both an incorporated and unincorporated group, which is the problem in this case. The issue at hand in Heatons Transport Ltd. v. TGWU [15] was a union's responsibility for the activities of a union official. Liability only exists based on the continuation of responsibility.

O'Donnell J. gave grounds for the damages being reduced to €150,000 and that they should be split equally. O'Donnell J. went beyond the context of employment. According to the ruling, the first defendant was additionally accountable. [1]

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

Grokster Ltd. was a privately owned software company based in Nevis, West Indies that created the Grokster peer-to-peer file-sharing client in 2001 that used the FastTrack protocol. Grokster Ltd. was rendered extinct in late 2005 by the United States Supreme Court's decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. The court ruled against Grokster's peer-to-peer file sharing program for computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system, effectively forcing the company to cease operations.

Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability because, unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. The law has developed the view that some relationships by their nature require the person who engages others to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing of those others. The most important such relationship for practical purposes is that of employer and employee.

Misfeasance in public office is a cause of action in the civil courts of England and Wales and certain Commonwealth countries. It is an action against the holder of a public office, alleging in essence that the office-holder has misused or abused their power. The tort can be traced back to 1703 when Chief Justice Sir John Holt decided that a landowner could sue a police constable who deprived him of his right to vote. The tort was revived in 1985 when it was used so that French turkey producers could sue the Ministry of Agriculture over a dispute that harmed their sales.

<i>London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd, [1992] 3 SCR 299 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on privity of contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian defamation law</span> Commonwealth jurisdictions

Canadian defamation law refers to defamation law as it stands in both common law and civil law jurisdictions in Canada. As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues.

<i>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.</i>

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, is a U.S. district court case about whether the operator of a computer bulletin board service ("BBS") and Internet access provider that allows that BBS to reach the Internet should be liable for copyright infringement committed by a subscriber of the BBS. The plaintiff Religious Technology Center ("RTC") argued that defendant Netcom was directly, contributorily, and vicariously liable for copyright infringement. Netcom moved for summary judgment, disputing RTC's claims and raising a First Amendment argument and a fair use defense. The district court of the Northern District of California concluded that RTC's claims of direct and vicarious infringement failed, but genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment on contributory liability and fair use.

Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. This liability has expanded in recent years following the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd to better cover intentional torts, such as sexual assault and deceit. Historically, it was held that most intentional wrongdoings were not in the course of ordinary employment, but recent case law suggests that where an action is closely connected with an employee's duties, an employer can be found vicariously liable. The leading case is now the Supreme Court decision in Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, which emphasised the concept of "enterprise risk".

<i>Doe v. Holy See</i> Lawsuit against the Catholic Church

Doe v. Holy See, 557 F.3d 1066, was a lawsuit involving the sovereign immunity status of the Holy See in relation to the Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States. The threshold question of law in the case was whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act allows the Holy See, a sovereign state in international law, to be sued for acts of local Catholic clergy.

<i>Bazley v Curry</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Bazley v Curry, [1999] 2 SCR 534 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of vicarious liability where the Court held that a non-profit organization may be held vicariously liable in tort law for sexual misconduct by one of its employees. The decision has widely influenced jurisprudence on vicarious liability outside of Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort law in India</span> Aspect of Indian law

Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.

<i>Hall v Hebert</i> Canadian tort law case on contributory negligence

Hall v Hebert is a leading tort law case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the defences of contributory negligence and ex turpi causa non oritur actio.

Contributory copyright infringement is a way of imposing secondary liability for infringement of a copyright. It is a means by which a person may be held liable for copyright infringement even though he or she did not directly engage in the infringing activity. In the United States, the Copyright Act does not itself impose liability for contributory infringement expressly. It is one of the two forms of secondary liability apart from vicarious liability. Contributory infringement is understood to be a form of infringement in which a person is not directly violating a copyright but induces or authorizes another person to directly infringe the copyright.

<i>Byrne v Ireland</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Byrne v Ireland[1972] IR 241 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the court held that the State was not immune from tortious liability and thus abolished the immunity of the State in tort. Therefore, the State could be sued for the actions of its servants. This case also determined that the Attorney General was the appropriate party to represent the State in these tort cases.

<i>Geraldine Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd</i> Irish supreme court case

Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd [2005] IESC 2 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court that confirmed that under Section 4 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 an occupier of land is not required to take all reasonable care to safeguard the person or property of either trespassers or recreational users.

<i>Gilroy v Flynn</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Gilroy v Flynn[2004] IESC 98; [2005] 1 ILRM 290 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the court made it clear that excessive delays in the delivery of a statement of claim were unacceptable and could justify dismissing a case. While the court allowed the appeal against the High Court central to this case to proceed, it effectively reversed the previous "assumption that even grave delay will not lead to the dismissal of an action" even where the fault of the delay lay with a legal adviser rather than the plaintiff.

Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools [2012] UKSC 56 is an English tort law case, concerning enterprise liability.

<i>Harold Wildgust and Carrickowen Ltd v Bank of Ireland and Norwich Union Life Assurance Society</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Harold Wildgust and Carrickowen Ltd v Bank of Ireland and Norwich Union Life Assurance[2006] IESC 19; [2006] 2 ILRM 28; [2006] 1 IR 570; [2007] 3 IR 39, is an Irish Supreme Court case where the court imposed liability on the defendants, Norwich Union Life Assurance for a negligent misstatement made on its part in respect of the plaintiffs Harold Wildgust and Carrickowen Ltd. The Supreme Court outlined the "proximity test" which is to be used in cases involving negligent misstatement and held that duty of care concerning negligent misstatement is not confined to the persons to whom the misstatement is actually made.

<i>Murphy v County Wexford VEC</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Murphy v County Wexford VEC[2004] IESC 49; [2004] 4 IR 202 is an Irish Supreme Court case concerning a personal injury case appealed to the Supreme Court from the High Court. The plaintiff suffered serious injuries as a result of "horseplay." The Court held there was a duty of care on the VEC to provide supervision at lunchtime." Despite having implemented steps to control such behaviour, it was found that the defendants/appellants failed in their obligations towards the plaintiff/respondent.

References

  1. 1 2 "Hickey -v- McGowan & ors [2017] IESC 6 (09 February 2017)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2019-12-22.
  2. ↑ "Hickey v. McGowan". Irish Reports. [2017] 2 I.R. 196.
  3. ↑ Gallen, James (2017). "VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND HISTORICAL ABUSE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF HICKEY v McGOWAN". Westlaw. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
  4. ↑ "O'Keeffe v Hickey and Others". vLex. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
  5. ↑ Court, The Supreme. "The Catholic Child Welfare Society and others (Appellants) v Various Claimants (FC) and The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools and others (Respondents) - The Supreme Court". www.supremecourt.uk. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
  6. ↑ Book (eISB), electronic Irish Statute. "electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)". www.irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
  7. ↑ "Hickey -v- McGowan & ors [2017] IESC 6 (09 February 2017)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
  8. ↑ Court, The Supreme. "Mr A M Mohamud (in substitution for Mr A Mohamud (deceased)) (Appellant) v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (Respondent) - The Supreme Court". www.supremecourt.uk. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
  9. ↑ "Gravil v Carroll & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 689 (18 June 2008)". www.casecheck.co.uk. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
  10. ↑ "Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd; Wallbank v Wallbank Fox Designs Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ, CA | Croner-i". app.croneri.co.uk. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
  11. ↑ "Hay v O'Grady". vLex. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
  12. ↑ "Paul Doyle v Catherine Banville". vLex. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
  13. ↑ "Liability in Unincorporated Associations". Default. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
  14. ↑ "The State (Hayes) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal". vLex. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
  15. ↑ "Heatons Transport (St. Helens) Ltd v TGWU (Interim Proceedings)". vLex. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.