Further to our posting last week on Vicarious Liability and the Implications for Employers, it was interesting to note that in yesterdays Irish Times it highlighted a recent case where a Bishop was held vicariously liable for the actions of a priest.
The case of JGE -v- Trustees of Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust (EWCA Civ 938) is interesting as although not strictly and employer/employee relationship, the Court agreed that the relationship, although different in a number of ways, was sufficiently close to that of an employer/employee to render the Bishop vicariously liable for the actions of the priest.
Lord Justice Ward spoke at length on the extensive discussions currently surrounding vicarious liability and said "the courts do not speak with one voice on this, but the search for principle to explain the development of the law must nevertheless go on."
He said he had found this issue difficult to decide. The time has come to emphatically announce the law of vicarious liability has "moved beyond the confines of a contract of service."
He spoke on his finding stating, "Ultimately there is little difference between the bishop’s control over the priest and the health trust’s control over the surgeon: neither is told how to do the job and both can be told how not to do it,”
the article put this judgement into perspective by stating;
"The question of control should be viewed in a wider sense than enquiring whether the employer had the legal power to control how the employee did his work, and more in terms of whether the employee was accountable for the way he did the work so that the employer could supervise and effect improvements and eliminate risks of harms to others."
This is an important decision on the issue of vicarious liability as it shows it does not stop at the employment contract and extends to the relationship that exists, and can be examined in the control that the employer exerts over the relationship.
Further to our posting last week on Vicarious Liability and the Implications for Employers, it was interesting to note that in yesterdays Irish Times it highlighted a recent case where a Bishop was held vicariously liable for the actions of a priest.
The case of JGE -v- Trustees of Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust (EWCA Civ 938) is interesting as although not strictly and employer/employee relationship, the Court agreed that the relationship, although different in a number of ways, was sufficiently close to that of an employer/employee to render the Bishop vicariously liable for the actions of the priest.
Lord Justice Ward spoke at length on the extensive discussions currently surrounding vicarious liability and said "the courts do not speak with one voice on this, but the search for principle to explain the development of the law must nevertheless go on."
He said he had found this issue difficult to decide. The time has come to emphatically announce the law of vicarious liability has "moved beyond the confines of a contract of service."
He spoke on his finding stating, "Ultimately there is little difference between the bishop’s control over the priest and the health trust’s control over the surgeon: neither is told how to do the job and both can be told how not to do it,”
the article put this judgement into perspective by stating;
"The question of control should be viewed in a wider sense than enquiring whether the employer had the legal power to control how the employee did his work, and more in terms of whether the employee was accountable for the way he did the work so that the employer could supervise and effect improvements and eliminate risks of harms to others."
This is an important decision on the issue of vicarious liability as it shows it does not stop at the employment contract and extends to the relationship that exists, and can be examined in the control that the employer exerts over the relationship.
