When a tort is committed by someone without significant wealth or any insurance cover, it is natural that a victim should cast around to see whether any legal personality with money might also be liable for the tortious act. A recovery of damages might depend on finding such a person.

The law on vicarious and employers’ liability had been expanding to provide many claimants with the chance to make recoveries, but the Supreme Court put the brakes on expansion of the law in April this year with W M Morrisons Supermarkets Plc v Various Claimants. In Morrisons a disgruntled employee who worked with payroll data deliberately released personal data of employees onto the internet. The Supreme Court found that this was not done in the course of his employment and allowed an appeal from the Court of Appeal. Many employers will have heaved sighs of relief!

The issue has just come again in relation to employers’ liability for the practical joke of one of its staff.  In Chell v Tarmac the claimant was a subcontractor working on a Tarmac site. His hearing was permanently damaged when a Tarmac employee set off explosive gun pellets near his head. The court found that the action was not committed in “the ordinary course of his employment.” The events happened on the defendant’s premises. The pellets were set off by an employee using a hammer provided by the employer and used during his normal duties. The court found that the pellet gun was not work equipment, hitting pellet gun targets was not part of his duties and did not advance the employer’s goals. The employee was on a frolic of his own and the employer could not be expected to risk assess for practical jokes.

This seems like a pretty sensible judgement doesn’t it?

Well worth being aware of these cases though if you have to do a vicarious or employers’ liability essay. There’s nothing like being bang up to date for giving you extra marks!