Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T05:07:12.262Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Vicarious Liability in England and Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2003

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The impact of the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in Bazley v. Curry [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534 and Jacobi v. Griffiths [1999] 2 S.C.R. 570 continues to be felt across the common law world.

In those cases, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee's tort would be held to have been committed in the course of her employment if there was a “sufficiently close connection” between the employee's tort and what she was employed to do to make it “fair and just” that the employer should be held vicariously liable for the employee's tort. The Supreme Court went on to rule that such a connection would exist if and only if the work the employee was employed to do created or increased a risk that the employee would commit the kind of tort that she committed.

Type
Case and Comment
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2003