header-logo header-logo

Not strictly liable?

17 November 2017 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7770 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public
printer mail-detail

Nicholas Dobson discusses the doctrine of vicarious liability & lessons from Armes

  • The Supreme Court has found a local authority that acted without negligence to be vicariously liable for child abuse perpetrated by foster parents in the 1980s under child care legislation in force at material times.

Ever wondered why vicars are called vicars? The reason is a vicar is someone who takes the place of another. And, ecclesiastically speaking, vicars are (per OED) ‘earthly representatives of God or Christ’.

English lawyers though, are likely to encounter the word in a rather less religious context. For vicar gives us: vicarious (taking or supplying the place of another thing or person). And when the doctrine of vicarious liability applies, the law will hold an innocent defendant liable for the torts (civil wrongs) committed by another.

In that connection, the Supreme Court has recently issued a landmark judgment on the liability of a local authority for physical, emotional and sexual abuse perpetrated against a child in its care whom the authority placed with foster parents during

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll