Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd
An employer is vicariously liable for an employee's wrongful act if it was so closely connected with the employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer liable.
Facts
Mr Grain was employed as the warden of a boarding house for boys with emotional and behavioural difficulties, which was attached to a school owned by Hesley Hall. He sexually abused several of the boys in his care. The boys sued Hesley Hall, which argued that it was not vicariously liable, because sexual abuse could not be said to be an unauthorised way of doing what he was employed to do, under the traditional Salmond test.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that Hesley Hall was vicariously liable. Lord Steyn said that the question is whether the warden's torts were so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employers vicariously liable. The employers had undertaken to care for the boys through the services of the warden, and the abuse was committed in the time and on the premises of the employers while the warden was also busy caring for the children. There was a very close connection between his employment and his torts. The House overruled Trotman v North Yorkshire County Council.
Related cases on employers' liability and vicarious liability
- Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60, [2018] AC 355
- Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, [2020] AC 973
- Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509
- Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10, [2016] AC 660
- Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48, [2003] 2 AC 366
- Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 705
- Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862) 1 H & C 526
- Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34, [2007] 1 AC 224
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
