This decision confirms that courts are beginning to take a more flexible approach to
vicarious liability arguments, at least in the United Kingdom.
Not exact matches
The plaintiff accordingly moved after closing
arguments to amend his statement of claim to plead
vicarious liability and a duty to supervise.
[27] Alternatively, ICBC says that there is a policy
argument which supports its position that there is no cause of action in
vicarious liability.
However, these
arguments largely failed and in the JGE case the Church went a stage further, arguing that
vicarious liability can not arise in the first place as priests are not employees of the church, they are merely office holders and therefore (it argued) the essential precondition of
vicarious liability is not satisfied.
However, the claimant argued that a priest is akin to an employee in the sense of being controlled by the church and therefore
vicarious liability should arise; this
argument was accepted by the judge at first instance in JGE and was upheld by the Court of Appeal.