The Tort of Vicarious Liability and Viasystems PDF

Preview

Summary

This document summarises what the tort of Vicarious Liability is, and how this changes when there is more than one employer to hold accountable for liability.
The Viasystems case highlights this specific scenario and shows this exception in action.

Case breakdown and definitions g...

Description

The Tort of Vicarious Liability and Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v. Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd

Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v. Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd [2005] is a landmark case for vicarious liability, which established that if an employee has more than one employer, both will be liable for the employee. Vicarious liability is where one person has liability for the torts of another, despite the fact that person did not commit the act themselves. The most frequent way that this tort arises is in the context of employers being liable for their employees in the course of their employment.

The case Viasystems explores the concept of multiple employers at once, and where the responsibility falls.

Facts of the Case Viasystems Ltd is a company that supplies printed circuit boards and has two factories in Tyneside. They brought up litigation against Thermal Transfer Ltd as whilst they were installing an air conditioning unit, the Viasystems factory flooded. Viasystems sub-contracted S&P Darwell Ltd, which subcontracted CAT Metalwork Services, who hired Darren Strang. Darren made a “foolish mistake on the spur of the moment” when he climbed down a roof as he was sent there to collect fittings through a duct. When doing so, the duct collapsed and caused a sprinkler to flood the factory. This caused Viasystems to sue Thermal, S&P Darwell and CAT Metalwork. Thermal then sued for the contribution against S&P and CAT.

Judgement of the Case When tried in the Court of Appeal, the judges held that the defendants were all equally liable for the damages that happened at the site. The courts suggested that the employer to be most liable would be the direct employer of Darren Strang. May LJ held that the courts, when deciding similar fact cases in the future, should focus on whose responsibility it was to stop the negative acts from happening, and who’s employ they were in. On the basis of this, the court found S&P Darwell and Cat Metalling equally vicariously liable for the negligence carried out by Darren Strang. Applying the Civil Liabilities (Contribution) Act 1978, the court held that they had equal parts in liability and were ordered to pay 50% parts each for the flood damage....