Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability gives the claimant access to the financial resources of the employer via such means as his insurance. An employee, who was negligent, is unlikely to have the financial means to pay compensation. Therefore, even though the employer was not directly responsible for the loss, he is responsible for the negligence.

In the case of Rose v Plenty (1976) vicarious liability was proved. A milkman took a boy on the round against the wishes of the employer. The boy was hurt on the round and successfully sued the dairy for the milkman's negligence.


Further to this is the case of Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co. Ltd 1957. There are two Listers, a father and son. The son was reversing a lorry and hit his father. Although the father could have sued the son directly he chose to sue the employer for vicarious liability and won the case. The company (via the insurer) then sued the son who ended up paying the same amount for negligence because he had not obeyed reasonable commands or used reasonable care, both implied in his contract.


www.she.ltd.uk