Vicarious liability

Vicarious liability

Nature and operation of vicarious liability

Broadly, by virtue of the doctrine of vicarious liability, an employer is liable for an employee’s negligent actions if they were committed in the course or scope of the employee’s employment or are closely connected with what the employee is authorised by the employer to do.

It is referred to as ‘vicarious liability’ as the actual breach of duty is that of the employee. It is often said that the employer’s liability is strict; the employer is fixed with liability without any requirement of proof that there was any breach of duty on its part.

Although the majority of cases in which vicarious liability is alleged to attach will arise from the negligent act of an employee, the doctrine is not restricted to the employer/employee relationship. To succeed in a claim against a defendant based on its vicarious liability, the claimant must satisfy the following two-stage test:

•
stage one: the relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor was one of employment or ‘akin to employment’
•
stage two (the ‘close connection’ test): was the wrongful conduct so closely connected with acts that the tortfeasor

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Actions for unlawful police detention and QOCS protection in mixed claims (ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an appeal heard by Mr Justice Bourne, the High Court held that the arrests of a married couple, both of whom were serving Metropolitan Police officers, by Surrey Police were unlawful. The court found that the arresting officers had not given appropriate consideration to voluntary attendance for interview as a less intrusive alternative under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and Code G. The court stressed that the ‘necessity’ limb in PACE 1984, s 24 is an important constitutional safeguard, following a line of authority that stresses strict adherence to PACE 1984—an officer who gives no real consideration to alternatives runs the ‘plain risk’ of being found to have had no reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary. The court therefore allowed the liability appeal. This decision is an important reaffirmation of the strict operational limits on arrest powers. On costs, the court provided useful guidance as to the starting point in mixed personal injury claims, confirming that properly supported PI claims should attract QOCS protection. Bourne J concluded that the claimants’ pleaded and evidenced psychiatric injury claims meant the proceedings could properly be regarded as a personal injury action ‘in the round’ for QOCS purposes, and that the trial judge’s enforcement order permitting 70% of the defendant’s costs should not have been made, under the mixed-claim discretion in CPR 44.16. Written by Connor Wright, barrister, St Philips Chambers.

MoJ introduces Public Office (Accountability) Bill with new duty of candour for officials

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced the introduction of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill to Parliament. The legislation would create a new professional and legal duty of candour for public officials, backed by criminal sanctions for serious breaches. It would establish non-means tested legal aid for bereaved families at inquests, introduce a new criminal offence for misleading the public, and require legal spending by public bodies at inquests to be proportionate. The measures aim to prevent institutional concealment of facts following public disasters and scandals, applying to all public bodies and officials.

Recoverability of probate costs (Hutson (Deceased) v Tata Steel UK Ltd)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In Hutson (Deceased) v Tata Steel UK Ltd (SCCO), Costs Judge Rowley considered whether the costs of obtaining a grant of probate (or letters of administration) could be recovered in litigation. Unlike Mosson v Spousal (London) Ltd, where probate costs were treated as irrecoverable damages (under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934), here the court was asked to consider whether costs of probate were recoverable as costs. Rowley J held that if probate was obtained solely for the purpose of litigation, then the reasonable costs of doing so were recoverable inter partes. Where probate was required for estate administration, however, only the nominal cost of obtaining a copy could be claimed. The decision also sets out a practical test for recoverability, lowering the evidential threshold: a simple confirmation by the personal representative would appear to suffice. This marks a notable shift in stance since Mosson, with significant implications for practitioners handling claims brought by estates. Written by Jim Hester, barrister at Parklane Plowden Chambers.

190th Practice Direction update—online civil claims—in force 16 September 2025

The 190th Practice Direction update comes into force at 11am on 16 September 2025. This update introduces changes to amend CPR PD 51R (the Online Civil Money Claims Pilot) and CPR PD 51ZB (the Damages Claims Pilot). The changes to CPR PD 51R expand the case progression and general applications features to all County Courts. The update also makes minor tidying up amendments to CPR PD 51R and CPR PD 51ZB.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News