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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll