Question

Vijay runs a popular local restaurant and occasionally hires Dilpreet as a dancer to entertain patrons. One evening a regular customer, Winston, is celebrating his 85th birthday with his family. Winston had been drinking some alcohol but later claims he was definitely not drunk when Dilpreet enticed him to dance with her. As the dance got faster Winston made every effort to keep up with her but, unfortunately, he had a fall breaking his leg. This has never happened at Vijay’s restaurant before and it has never happened to Dilpreet either. Winston has no previous history of leg injury.

Explain how the rules of vicarious liability may be applied to this case. You must use relevant cases to support your answer.

Answer 1

As per provisions of law vicarious liability is that legal doctrine which assigns liability for an injury to a person or an individual even though the injury in concern was not caused by that person. The liability is assigned on the grounds that the person or individual being held responsible and liable had a particular legal relationship with the person who had acted in a negligent manner that led to the injury.

In this case Dilpreet is clearly an agent of Vijay as Dilpreet has been hired by Vijay for his restaurant. Hence Vijay will have to bear the legal responsibility of any actions of Dilpreet. Here Dilpreet enticed an old man (specifically a 85 year old man) to dance with her and then made him dance in a manner that was certainly against his physical capacity and condition due to his age. Hence Dilpreet was negligent here and Vijay being Dilpreet’s principal will be held liable for Dilpreet’s negligent actions.

Take the case of WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants. In this case the court of law held that to make an employer or a principal vicariously liable for the actions of employee/agent the close connection test has to be proved or satisfied. The court, in other words, will look if 'the wrongful conduct was so closely connected with acts the employee was authorized to do that it may fairly and properly be regarded as done by the employee while acting in the ordinary course of his employment.' In the case of Vijay’s restaurant Dilpreet was entrusted with the responsibility of dancing and entertaining guests. Hence the close connection test will be satisfied and Vijay will be held vicariously responsible and liable.