Vicarious Liability - 1993
Vicarious Liability. All aspects of vicarious liability. See also Employment Law
The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database.
lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.
This page lists 3 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.
|Seaboard Offshore Ltd -v- Secretary of State Transport |
|24 Mar 1993
|Health and Safety, Vicarious Liability
|A company is not vicariously liable for the failure of the Captain of ship to comply with the section. The section was not framed so as to appear to give rise to criminal liability of an employer for acts of an employee in such circumstances. The owner did not have personal vicarious liability for everything done in operating the ship.|
|Merchant Shipping Act 1988 31|
|Oceangas (Gibraltar) Ltd -v- Pla (The Cavendish) |
|24 May 1993
|Negligence, Transport, Vicarious Liability
|A harbour authority is not vicariously liable for a pilot's negligence. A pilot is an independent professional person, even though the port provides his services, and can insist on his employment.|
|Pilotage Act 1987|
|Racz -v- Home Office  2 AC 45|
|17 Dec 1993
HLLord Jauncey of Tullichettle
|Vicarious Liability, Prisons
|The Home Office can be liable for the actions of prison officers which amounted to an official misfeasance. The principles of vicarious liability apply as much to misfeasance in public office as to other torts involving malice, knowledge or intention. Lord Jauncey: "My Lords, in my view, striking out paragraph 6 of this claim could only be justified if the inevitable result of proof of the averments therein was that the unauthorised acts of the prison officers was so unconnected with their authorised duties as to be quite independent of and outside those duties". And " ... the Court of Appeal were dealing with the question of mode of trial upon the basis that the claim in respect of misfeasance in public office would not proceed. However, the facts relevant to that claim are likely to be identical to those which will be considered under the remaining heads of claim and the issue of exemplary damages also falls to be considered under those heads of claim." However, there can be no false imprisonment of a prisoner who is lawfully confined under section 12(1) of the 1952 Act, and that a restraint upon movement which is not in accordance with the Prison Rules 1964 does not give rise to a cause of action for either false imprisonment or breach of statutory duty.|