Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd
Encyclopedia
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 is an English tort law
case, creating a new precedent
for finding where an employer is vicariously liable
for the torts of their employees. Prior to this decision, it had been found that sexual abuse by employees of others could not be seen as in the course of their employment, precluding recovery from the employer. The majority of the House of Lords
however overruled the Court of Appeal, and these earlier decisions, establishing that the "relative closeness" connecting the tort and the nature of an individual's employment established liability.
was opened in 1979; the principal students to live there having behavioural and emotional difficulties. The claimants in the instant case had resided there between the years 1979 to 1982, being aged 12 to 15 during this time, under the care of a warden, who was in charge of maintaining discipline and the running of the house. The warden lived at the house also, with his disabled wife, and together they were the only two members of staff
in the house. His duties were ensuring order, in making sure the children went to bed, went to school, engaged in evening activities, and supervising other staff. It had been alleged by some of the boys that the warden had sexually abused them, including gifting them unwarranted surprises, and taking trips alone with them. A criminal investigation took place some ten years later, resulting in the warden being sentenced to seven years imprisonment; following this, the victims brought an action for personal injury against the employers, alleging they were vicariously liable.
This decision is significant in the Lords' assessment of the Salmond
test for vicarious liability as inadequate. It was summarised as such:
This new test of close connection has been described as 'fairer', and of greater use to claimants. Lord Clyde
stated three principles in his judgment which should be considered. Of importance is that the employment status of an individual cannot merely have provided the employee with an opportunity to commit a tort. There must be a connection between the duties of an employee and the tort committed
, as restated in the subsequent case of Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam, involving deceit and theft.
. vicarious liability was found where a bouncer
, intent on revenge, stabbed a patron of the night club he worked at. Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam. established liability for fraud of employees, where it is outside of their duties or authority to make certain representations.
English tort law
English tort law concerns civil wrongs, as distinguished from criminal wrongs, in the law of England and Wales. Some wrongs are the concern of the state, and so the police can enforce the law on the wrongdoers in court – in a criminal case...
case, creating a new precedent
Precedent
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a legal case that a court or other judicial body may apply when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts...
for finding where an employer is vicariously liable
Vicarious liability
Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability...
for the torts of their employees. Prior to this decision, it had been found that sexual abuse by employees of others could not be seen as in the course of their employment, precluding recovery from the employer. The majority of the House of Lords
House of Lords
The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster....
however overruled the Court of Appeal, and these earlier decisions, establishing that the "relative closeness" connecting the tort and the nature of an individual's employment established liability.
Facts
A boarding house (Axeholme House) for Wilsic Hall School, in DoncasterDoncaster
Doncaster is a town in South Yorkshire, England, and the principal settlement of the Metropolitan Borough of Doncaster. The town is about from Sheffield and is popularly referred to as "Donny"...
was opened in 1979; the principal students to live there having behavioural and emotional difficulties. The claimants in the instant case had resided there between the years 1979 to 1982, being aged 12 to 15 during this time, under the care of a warden, who was in charge of maintaining discipline and the running of the house. The warden lived at the house also, with his disabled wife, and together they were the only two members of staff
Employment
Employment is a contract between two parties, one being the employer and the other being the employee. An employee may be defined as:- Employee :...
in the house. His duties were ensuring order, in making sure the children went to bed, went to school, engaged in evening activities, and supervising other staff. It had been alleged by some of the boys that the warden had sexually abused them, including gifting them unwarranted surprises, and taking trips alone with them. A criminal investigation took place some ten years later, resulting in the warden being sentenced to seven years imprisonment; following this, the victims brought an action for personal injury against the employers, alleging they were vicariously liable.
Judgment
T v North Yorkshire CC, decided just two years earlier by the Court of Appeal, had found that a headmaster's sexual abuse of a child on a field trip was not within the scope of his employment, a previous criterion by which an employer could be found vicariously liable. This was the view taken prior to the House of Lords appeal, but was reversed, with Lord Steyn making the leading judgment. Here, he cited a recent Canadian case, which had imposed liability for intentional torts, creating a new test of 'close connection', rather than using previous formulations:| "(1) a wrongful act authorised by the master, or (2) a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master. It is clear that the master is responsible for acts actually authorised by him: for liability would exist in this case, even if the relation between the parties was merely one of agency, and not one of service at all. But a master, as opposed to the employer of an independent contractor, is liable even for acts which he has not authorised, provided they are so connected with acts which he has authorised that they may rightly be regarded as modes-although improper modes-of doing them." |
| John William Salmond John William Salmond Sir John William Salmond, KC was a legal scholar, public servant and judge in New Zealand.-Biography:Salmond was born in North Shields, Northumberland, England, in 1862, the eldest son of William Salmond , a Presbyterian minister and professor... 's formulation of where an employer would be liable |
This decision is significant in the Lords' assessment of the Salmond
John William Salmond
Sir John William Salmond, KC was a legal scholar, public servant and judge in New Zealand.-Biography:Salmond was born in North Shields, Northumberland, England, in 1862, the eldest son of William Salmond , a Presbyterian minister and professor...
test for vicarious liability as inadequate. It was summarised as such:
This new test of close connection has been described as 'fairer', and of greater use to claimants. Lord Clyde
Lord Clyde
Lord Clyde may refer to*Field Marshal Colin Campbell, 1st Baron Clyde , Scottish soldier*James Avon Clyde, Lord Clyde , Scottish Conservative politician and judge...
stated three principles in his judgment which should be considered. Of importance is that the employment status of an individual cannot merely have provided the employee with an opportunity to commit a tort. There must be a connection between the duties of an employee and the tort committed
, as restated in the subsequent case of Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam, involving deceit and theft.
Developments
Following this expansion of liability, employers have been found liable in subsequent cases for intentional torts of their employees. In Mattis v PollockMattis v Pollock
Mattis v Pollock [2003] 1 WLR 2158 is an English tort law case, establishing an employer's vicarious liability for assault, even where it may be intentional or pre-meditated...
. vicarious liability was found where a bouncer
Bouncer (doorman)
A bouncer is an informal term for a type of security guard employed at venues such as bars, nightclubs or concerts to provide security, check legal age, and refuse entry to a venue based on criteria such as intoxication, aggressive behavior, or attractiveness...
, intent on revenge, stabbed a patron of the night club he worked at. Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam. established liability for fraud of employees, where it is outside of their duties or authority to make certain representations.
See also
- T v North Yorkshire CC
- Vicarious liability in English lawVicarious liability in English lawVicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties...
- English tort lawEnglish tort lawEnglish tort law concerns civil wrongs, as distinguished from criminal wrongs, in the law of England and Wales. Some wrongs are the concern of the state, and so the police can enforce the law on the wrongdoers in court – in a criminal case...
- Bazley v Curry [1999] 2 SCR 534