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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll