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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll