To what extent does the common law render the employer vicariously liable for the criminal acts of his employee?<\/p>\n
Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that is rapidly developing, described by Lord Phillips as \u2018on the move\u2019. Employers\u2019 tortious liability for employees\u2019 criminal actions is no exception, as evidenced by the UK Supreme Court\u2019s decision in March 2016 in Mohamud v Morrison Supermarkets<\/em>, regarding a racially-motivated assault by a Morrisons petrol station employee on a customer. Here the Supreme Court confirmed that an employer may be found liable for an employee\u2019s criminal actions, even where an employee was motivated by personal reasons, so long as the \u2018close connection\u2019 test is satisfied. This \u2018close connection\u2019 test for generally establishing vicarious liability was established in the landmark case of Lister v Hesley Hall<\/em>, and requires the Court to evaluate the \u2018closeness\u2019 of the connection between the employee\u2019s actions, and the actions expected of them in the normal course of duty. The leading judgment in the Morrison<\/em> case emphasizes analysis of the \u2018field of activities\u2019 delegated to the employee and a \u2018sufficient connection\u2019 between the employee\u2019s position and their conduct.<\/p>\n Whilst the justification for employers\u2019 vicarious liability has been dismissed by some as part of a larger culture of blame and compensation, it can indeed be considered \u2018fair and just\u2019 that those who profit from a business should be liable for issues closely connected to their business. This is particularly so when one understands corrective justice and distributive justice as informing principles of tort law, as legal commentators such as Mullender argue ought be done. From this perspective, it is advantageous to victims in the instant case to be able to sue a party with deeper pockets to help in restoring them to the position they were in prior to the criminal action, as well as advantageous to society in terms of distributing resources in a more societally just fashion.<\/p>\n Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56.<\/p>\n Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc [2016] UKSC 11.<\/p>\n A Ohringer, \u2018Paying for the mistakes of others: when businesses are liable for their workers’ misconduct\u2019 (2016) 39(26) CSR 214.<\/p>\n Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 A.C. 215.<\/p>\n Mohamud v Morrison (n 2).<\/p>\n S.S.H Chan, \u2018Hidden departure from the Lister close connection test\u2019 (3 August 2016) LMCLQ 352.<\/p>\n J Martin & T Storey, \u2018Unlocking Criminal Law\u2019 (Routledge, 2015) 185.<\/p>\n R Mullender, \u2018Corrective Justice, Distributive Justice and the Law of Negligence\u2019 (2001) 17(1) PN J 35.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" To what extent does the common law impose vicarious liability upon employers for the criminal actions of their employees?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1938,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nReferences<\/h2>\n