Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd

Last updated

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court House of Lords
Decided3 May 2001
Citation(s)[2001] UKHL 22
Keywords
Vicarious liability, course of employment, close connection

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 is an English tort law case, creating a new precedent for finding where an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of their employees. Prior to this decision, it had been found that sexual abuse by employees of others could not be seen as in the course of their employment, precluding recovery from the employer. [1] The majority of the House of Lords however overruled the Court of Appeal, and these earlier decisions, establishing that the "relative closeness" connecting the tort and the nature of an individual's employment established liability. [2]

Contents

Facts

A boarding house (Axeholme House) for Wilsic Hall School, in Doncaster was opened in 1979; the principal students to live there having behavioural and emotional difficulties. [3] The claimants in the instant case had resided there between the years 1979 to 1982, being aged 12 to 15 during this time, under the care of a warden, who was in charge of maintaining discipline and the running of the house. The warden lived at the house also, with his disabled wife, and together they were the only two members of staff in the house. [4] His duties were ensuring order, in making sure the children went to bed, went to school, engaged in evening activities, and supervising other staff. [4] It had been alleged by some of the boys that the warden had sexually abused them, including inappropriate advances and taking trips alone with them. A criminal investigation took place some ten years later, resulting in the warden being sentenced to seven years imprisonment; [5] following this, the victims brought an action for personal injury against the employers, alleging they were vicariously liable. [6]

Judgment

T v North Yorkshire CC , decided just two years earlier by the Court of Appeal, had found that a headmaster's sexual abuse of a child on a field trip was not within the scope of his employment, a previous criterion by which an employer could be found vicariously liable. [7] This was the view taken prior to the House of Lords appeal, but was reversed, with Lord Steyn making the leading judgment. Here, he cited a recent Canadian case, [8] which had imposed liability for intentional torts, creating a new test of 'close connection', rather than using previous formulations:

My Lords, I have been greatly assisted by the luminous and illuminating judgments of the Canadian Supreme Court in Bazley v Curry , and Jacobi v Griffiths . [9] Wherever such problems are considered in future in the common law world these judgments will be the starting point. On the other hand, it is unnecessary to express views on the full range of policy considerations examined in those decisions Employing the traditional methodology of English law, I am satisfied that in the case of the appeals under consideration the evidence showed that the employers entrusted the care of the children in Axeholme House to the warden. The question is whether the warden's torts were so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employers vicariously liable. On the facts of the case the answer is yes. After all, the sexual abuse was inextricably interwoven with the carrying out by the warden of his duties in Axeholme House. Matters of degree arise. But the present cases clearly fall on the side of vicarious liability. [10]

This decision is significant in the Lords' assessment of the Salmond test for vicarious liability as inadequate. The previous test had been framed as follows:

(1) a wrongful act authorised by the master, or
(2) a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master.
It is clear that the master is responsible for acts actually authorised by him: for liability would exist in this case, even if the relation between the parties was merely one of agency, and not one of service at all. But a master, as opposed to the employer of an independent contractor, is liable even for acts which he has not authorised, provided they are so connected with acts which he has authorised that they may rightly be regarded as modes-although improper modes-of doing them.
—  John William Salmond's formulation of where an employer would be liable [11]

The Lords' new assessment was summarised as such:

For nearly a century English judges have adopted Salmond's statement of the applicable test as correct. .. It is not necessary to embark on a detailed examination of the development of the modern principle of vicarious liability. But it is necessary to face up to the way in which the law of vicarious liability sometimes may embrace intentional wrongdoing by an employee. If one mechanically applies Salmond's test, the result might at first glance be thought to be that a bank is not liable to a customer where a bank employee defrauds a customer by giving him only half the foreign exchange which he paid for, the employee pocketing the difference. A preoccupation with conceptualistic reasoning may lead to the absurd conclusion that there can only be vicarious liability if the bank carries on business in defrauding its customers. Ideas divorced from reality have never held much attraction for judges steeped in the tradition that their task is to deliver principled but practical justice. [12]

This new test of close connection has been described as 'fairer', and of greater use to claimants. [13] Lord Clyde stated three principles in his judgment which he felt should be considered:

  • in considering the scope of the employment, a broad approach should be adopted;
  • while consideration of the time and place at which the acts occurred will always be relevant, they may not be conclusive; and
  • while the employment enables the employee to be present at a particular time and place, the opportunity of being present at particular premises whereby the employee has been able to perform the act in question does not mean that the act is necessarily within the scope of the employment.

Of importance is that the employment status of an individual cannot merely have provided the employee with an opportunity to commit a tort. [14] There must be a connection between the duties of an employee and the tort committed, [15] as restated in the subsequent case of Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam , [16] involving deceit and theft.

Developments

Following this expansion of liability, employers have been found liable in subsequent cases for intentional torts of their employees. In Mattis v Pollock [17] vicarious liability was found where a bouncer, intent on revenge, stabbed a patron of the night club at which he worked. Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [16] established liability for fraud of employees, where it is outside their duties or authority to make certain representations.

See also

Related Research Articles

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

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, 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.

Economic torts, which are also called business torts, are torts that provide the common law rules on liability which arise out of business transactions such as interference with economic or business relationships and are likely to involve pure economic loss.

Breaking the chain refers in English law to the idea that causal connections are deemed to finish. Even if the defendant can be shown to have acted negligently, there will be no liability if some new intervening act breaks the chain of causation between that negligence and the loss or damage sustained by the claimant.

<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.

<i>Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd</i>

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law. It concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. The House of Lords approved the test of "materially increasing risk" of harm, as a deviation in some circumstances from the ordinary "balance of probabilities" test under the "but for" standard.

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>Honeywill and Stein Ltd v Larkin Brothers Ltd</i>

Honeywill and Stein Ltd v Larkin Brothers Ltd [1934] 1 KB 191 is an English tort law case, establishing that employers may be vicariously liable for damage done by their independent contractors, where they carry out 'extra-hazardous' activities. Generally, employers are only vicariously liable for the torts of their employees, and not for those of independent contractors. However, a non-delegable duty may be imposed on an employer where they contract for inherently dangerous activities to be undertaken.

<i>Rose v Plenty</i>

Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141 is an English tort law case, on the issue of where an employee is acting within the course of their employment. Vicarious liability was tenuously found under John William Salmond's test for course of employment, which states that an employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that was authorised.

<i>Mattis v Pollock</i> English tort law case

Mattis v Pollock [2003] 1 WLR 2158 is an English tort law case, establishing an employer's vicarious liability for assault, even where it may be intentional or pre-meditated. Previously, judges had been unwilling to impose liability where assaults were motivated by revenge or vengeance; it was established however that following the decision of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd, that where an assault is closely linked to the duties of an employee, the employer should be held vicariously liable.

<i>Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd</i>

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.

<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.

<i>Majrowski v Guys and St Thomas NHS Trust</i>

Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34 is a UK labour law case holding that an employer will be vicariously liable for the harassment of an employee by another.

Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48 is an English vicarious liability case, concerning also breach of trust and dishonest assistance.

<i>Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd</i>

Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd[2005] EWCA Civ 1151 is an English tort law and UK labour law case, which held that a worker can have more than one employer at the same time, who will be vicariously liable for the worker.

K v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in the South African law of delict and South African constitutional law. It was heard by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2005, with judgment handed down on June 13. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J presided. W. Trengove SC appeared for the applicant; PF Louw SC appeared for the respondent. The applicant's counsel was instructed by the Women's Legal Centre, Cape Town. The respondent's attorney was the State Attorney, Johannesburg.

Lamb v Camden LBC[1981] EWCA Civ 7, [1981] QB 625 is a leading case in English tort law. It is a Court of Appeal decision on negligence and the test of reasonable foreseeability of damage, especially where the damage has been caused by third parties not the defendant him or herself.

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.

References

  1. ↑ T v North Yorkshire CC [1999] IR LR 98
  2. ↑ [2001] UKHL 22, at 24
  3. ↑ [2001] UKHL 22, at 2
  4. 1 2 [2001] UKHL 22, at 4
  5. ↑ [2001] UKHL 22, at 5
  6. ↑ [2001] UKHL 22, at 6
  7. ↑ Markesinis, Johnston, Deakin, p. 690
  8. ↑ Bazley v Curry (1999) 174 DLR
  9. ↑ Jacobi v Griffiths 174 DLR(4th) 71
  10. ↑ [2001] UKHL 22, at 27-28
  11. ↑ Heuston, R.E.V.; Buckley, R.A. (1996). Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts . Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN   0-421-53350-1., p. 443
  12. ↑ [2001] UKHL 22, at 15-16
  13. ↑ Levinson, p. 307
  14. ↑ Markesinis, Johnston, Deakin, p. 691
  15. ↑ Levinson, p. 305
  16. 1 2 Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48
  17. ↑ [2003] 1 WLR 2158

Bibliography

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.