levo
Log inStart

Tort: Vicarious Liability

Intentional wrongdoing and the close connection test

  • 3 things to know
  • Components 2 and 3

Overview

Lister v Hesley Hall and the close connection test that replaced the old Salmond formula, applied in Mattis and Mohamud and pulled back in Barclays Bank and Morrison.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Your recallNot started
Key term

Why were intentional torts once thought to fall outside vicarious liability?

Key term

What did Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] decide?

Key term

State the close connection test.

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 1

    Why were intentional torts once thought to fall outside vicarious liability?

    Model answer

    Deliberate wrongdoing is rarely an authorised way of doing a job. Courts once treated an intentional crime as necessarily outside the employment.

  2. 2

    What did Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] decide?

    Model answer

    A warden of a school boarding house sexually abused boys in his care. The House of Lords held the employer liable, because the abuse was closely connected with the duties he was employed to perform.

  3. 3

    State the close connection test.

    Model answer

    The close connection test asks whether the wrong is so closely connected with the employment that liability is fair and just. The test replaced the older question whether the act was an authorised mode of doing the job.

  4. 4

    What did Mattis v Pollock [2003] decide?

    Model answer

    A nightclub doorman encouraged to be aggressive left the club, fetched a knife and stabbed a customer. The Court of Appeal held the club liable, because the attack was closely connected with his duties.

  5. 5

    What did Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] decide?

    Model answer

    A petrol station kiosk attendant followed a customer onto the forecourt and assaulted him. The Supreme Court held the employer liable, because the attack flowed from the field of activities entrusted to him.

  6. 6

    What two questions did the Supreme Court ask in Mohamud?

    Model answer

    The first question asks what field of activities the employer entrusted to the employee. The second asks whether a sufficient connection joined that role to the wrongful conduct.

See the rest and revise

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

The 3-step method, run for you

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

The court sits in .
StrasbourgLondonParis

Blank Blitz makes facts automatic

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AAn interim injunction restrains publication before trial.
BPublication cannot be undone.
CAn injunction may be the only effective remedy.

Build It gets the exam shape right

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

A Public Bill changes the general law.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

Every question in Tort: Vicarious Liability, on a schedule.

Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.

Start revising, £5 a monthSee how the method works

Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.