Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:01:42 +0100 (BST)

From: Robert Stevens

Subject: Two employers

This is a possible, if radical, explanation for the decision of the Court of Appeal. You would have to say (I think) that the High Court of Australia were wrong in Scott v Davis in thinking that the motor vehicle cases should be put into a box and forgotten about.

If this view is correct why am I not always liable for those who do a job for me? In Ormerod (or in the case of the errand running child) after the defendant has selected and dispatched their "agent" they exercise no control over them. On one view I would not only be liable for the acts of 'independent contractors' but all those who undertake a task on my behalf where I have control over their selection.

I make no comment on the level of discipline in Professor Tettenborn's home.

RS

Andrew Tettenborn writes:

Can't we draw a distinction between children and employees here?

Isn't the basis of vicarious liability not simply control incidentally, try and tell my children that I control them: but that's beside the point) but in addition the fact that someone is doing a job for you? That's why, if I get a friend to ferry my car somewhere as a favour I'm liable for his bad driving (Ormerod v Crosville), but I wouldn't be liable simply because I lent him my car (Launchbury v Morgans). On the child front, I'm not generally liable for the torts of my brats: but it might possibly be different if I sent one of them on an errand and he carelessly upended an old lady into the road en route.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>