External links
- Joel v. Morison [1834] EWHC KB J39 on Bailii
| Joel v Morison | |
|---|---|
| Court | Exchequer of Pleas |
| Decided | 3 July 1834 |
| Citation(s) | [1834] EWHC KB J39 172 ER 1338, (1834) 6 C & P 501 |
Joel v Morison [1834] EWHC KB J39 is a case in English tort law concerning the scope of vicarious liability of an employer for the acts of his employee.
Joel was struck down by a horse and cart driven by Morison's agent. Joel was crossing a street in the City of London, but the driver's job was simply to travel between Burton Crescent Mews and Finchley. The driver had detoured to visit a friend when the accident occurred. Morison argued that he was not liable for Joel's injuries because the agent had strayed off his path.
Parke, B held:
"If he [the driver] was going out of his way, against his master's implied commands, when driving on his master's business, he will make his master liable; but if he was going on a frolic of his own, without being at all on his master's business, the master will not be liable." [1]
The doctrine of respondeat superior meant the principal is liable for his agent's negligence only when the agent is acting at the time of the accident in the "course of his employment". Although the agent was doing Morison's business, he went, albeit momentarily, out of his way against his master's implied command. Morison was found liable.
In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.
Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.
The law of agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a set of contractual, quasi-contractual and non-contractual fiduciary relationships that involve a person, called the agent, that is authorized to act on behalf of another to create legal relations with a third party. Succinctly, it may be referred to as the equal relationship between a principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or implicitly, authorizes the agent to work under their control and on their behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or bring them and third parties into contractual relationship. This branch of law separates and regulates the relationships between:
Respondeat superior is a doctrine that a party is responsible for acts of their agents. For example, in the United States, there are circumstances when an employer is liable for acts of employees performed within the course of their employment. This rule is also called the master-servant rule, recognized in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.
In law, liable means "responsible or answerable in law; legally obligated". Legal liability concerns both civil law and criminal law and can arise from various areas of law, such as contracts, torts, taxes, or fines given by government agencies. The claimant is the one who seeks to establish, or prove, liability.
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.
In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.
English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.
In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.
In commercial law, a principal is a person, legal or natural, who authorizes an agent to act to create one or more legal relationships with a third party. This branch of law is called agency and relies on the common law proposition qui facit per alium, facit per se.
A Frolic of His Own is a book by William Gaddis, published by Poseidon Press in 1994. It was his fourth and final novel published during his lifetime. It won his second U.S. National Book Award for Fiction.
In the English law of negligence, the acts of the claimant may give the defendant a defence to liability, whether in whole or part, if those acts unreasonably add to the loss.
Frolic and detour in the law of torts occur when an employee makes a physical departure from the service of his employer. A detour occurs when an employee or agent makes a minor departure from his employer's charge whereas a frolic is a major departure when the employee is acting on his own and for his own benefit, rather than a minor sidetrack in the course of obeying an order from the employer.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:
Priestley v Fowler [1837] 150 ER 1030 is an old English tort law case, which introduced the old rule of common employment. This is idea that the employer is not liable for injuries caused by one employee to another in the course of their employment. The rule was removed in its entirety in the United Kingdom by the Law Reform Act 1948.
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".
Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd [1966] 1 QB 716 is an English tort law case, establishing that sub-bailees are liable for the theft or negligence of their staff. Both Lord Denning and Lord Diplock rejected the idea that a contract need exist for a relationship of bailor and bailee to be found. Accordingly, it established an authority in vicarious liability, that employers are fully liable for the thefts - by employees - of goods that they have a duty to take care of.
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] EWCA Civ 4 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that the divide between a statement of opinion and fact becomes more factual if one holds himself out as having expert knowledge.
Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd[1956] UKHL 6 is an important English tort law, contract law and labour law, which concerns vicarious liability and an ostensible duty of an employee to compensate the employer for torts he commits in the course of employment.
Agency in English law is the component of UK commercial law that deals with the application of agency law in the United Kingdom, and forms a core set of rules necessary for the smooth functioning of business.
