header-logo header-logo

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

Vicarious liability: placing the blame

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll