Law Report - Proper Law Question

[Peter Pedant]

.

teevee tonight: a commentator said that last year the Supreme Court (or House of Lords to me as I live in the past) has enlarged the scope of vicarious liability - that is the liability of the employer for the actions of his employee during employment - to self employed contractors. such as Jimmy S

then he kinda wrecked it all by referring it to a kinda no fault liability.

Does anyone have the case ref or reference ?

Many thanks

[Buenchico]

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/56.html

[plowter]

Do you have access to the t'internet?

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/56.html

[FredPuli43]

Curious how,and to what extent, this is new law. The fact that a man is self-employed does not exonerate someone who engages him to do something. The principal has always been liable for the actions of his agent. That's why we plead that "X the servant or agent of Y drove a vehicle negligently etc". It doesn't matter whether he's a servant or he's an agent of another provided what he is doing is in the course of the agency or employment and he's not on some absolute frolic of his own.

[FredPuli43]

Posted the above before seeing the other posts and the link. The case isn't to do with self-employed people, nor, indeed does it help specifically with cases in the entertainment industry, to which there is reference. [see para 85]. But it does emphasize that actions may be brought when the tortfeasor is in a situation akin to employment. As the judgment says, nobody would have doubted that this body would have been liable if one of the Brothers had negligently driven a van when collecting the groceries for the Brothers; it would not have been argued that the case could not be brought because he wasn't a paid employee.

[Peter Pedant]

Many thanks all of you who replied

I can settle down in front of the fire.......