Vicarious liability in the course of employment—the close connection test


Produced in partnership with Andrew Wilson
Practice notes

Vicarious liability in the course of employment—the close connection test


Produced in partnership with Andrew Wilson

Practice notes
imgtext

To identify the circumstances in which a court may find an employer to be vicariously liable for a tort committed by an employee it is useful to trace the development of the doctrine.

Salmond test

Historically, the test to be applied was the one described by Salmond in his 1907 text Law of Torts.

The fundamental proposition was that:

‘a master is not responsible for a wrongful act done by his servant unless it is done in the course of his employment’

Salmond went on to say that it was deemed to be done in the course of his employment if it was either:

  1. •

    a wrongful act authorised by the master, or

  2. •

    a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master

In the course of employment

Before Lister v Hesley Hall (see below), a claimant would seek to establish that the tortfeasor was acting in the course of their employment when committing the tort. This would involve an investigation of the nature and

Andrew Wilson
Andrew Wilson

Consultant Solicitor

Andrew has more than 25 years’ experience of working in the fields of personal injury and occupational disease litigation, acting for both claimants and defendants. He trained at L Bingham & Co, gaining early experience in a number of important high profile claims involving the MIB. During the 1990s Andrew worked at Hextalls and then Kennedys, predominantly for defendants across a range of motor, employers’ liability and public liability matters many of which involved serious injuries or death. More recently, he has dealt with cases for claimants who have suffered serious injuries or occupational disease. He was a partner in a large specialist practice. He has provided seminars to solicitors and other legal professionals both for an external conference company and in house on the workings of the Civil Procedure Rules in the context of personal injury claims, amongst other subjects.

He has now set up his own legal consultancy, providing advice and support to solicitors, particularly a specialist London practice, in connection with fatal accidents and very serious injury cases such as brain injury, mostly in the High Court. He has continued to develop his education and training activities, providing seminars and contributing articles and commentaries to legal information services.

Since his training, Andrew has retained a particular interest in issues of motor indemnity and the operation of the Road Traffic Act and Article 75.

Read moreRead more
Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Key definition:
Vicarious liability definition
What does Vicarious liability mean?

Criminal responsibility for the act or omission of another, usually an employee.

Read more

Popular documents

Where a claimant has obtained default judgment pursuant to CPR 12.4(1) will the court order a disposal

Where a claimant has obtained default judgment pursuant to CPR 12.4(1) will the court order a disposal hearing or allocate the case to a track and give standard fast track directions?Setting aside default judgmentWhere a claimant has obtained default judgment, a defendant may still wish to defend

Assumption of risk in sports and leisure claims

Assumption of risk in sports and leisure claimsMany sports and leisure activities carry an inherent risk of injury. Participating in an extreme sport or leisure activity can make it alluring and exciting but even common and less dangerous activities and sports such as cycling, swimming, playing

Vicarious liability in the course of employment—the close connection test

Vicarious liability in the course of employment—the close connection testTo identify the circumstances in which a court may find an employer to be vicariously liable for a tort committed by an employee it is useful to trace the development of the doctrine.Salmond testHistorically, the test to be

Material contribution in personal injury claims

Material contribution in personal injury claimsThe standard test for determining whether the defendant’s breach caused the claimant’s loss is the ‘but for’ test. This test requires the court to consider: but for the breach of the duty by the defendant, would the claimant have sustained the damage?