header-logo header-logo

Vicarious liability: placing the blame

15 December 2017 / Carol Dalton , Carol Dalton
Issue: 7774 / Categories: Features , Personal injury , Employment
printer mail-detail
nlj_7774_dalton

Carol Dalton reviews the state of vicarious liability in 2017

  • 2017 saw a dramatic swing in cases concerning vicarious liability, where employers were held accountable for the failings of their employees.

Our understanding of how vicarious liability applies to claims has been transformed through the key decisions of the last two years. In 2016 the Supreme Court held that vicarious liability applied to the negligent actions of a prisoner working in prison kitchen (Cox v MoJ [2016] UKSC 10) and to the actions of an employee who viciously assaulted a customer (Mohamud v Morrison Supermarkets [2016] UKSC 11). There was much discussion following these decisions about whether the doctrine was still ‘on the move,’ and indeed it was. However, few could have predicted that the development of the doctrine could have continued on such a steep incline in 2017. Against this background it is important to understand the key decisions made and the implications.

2017 decisions

In July 2017, the High Court held

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

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