From: | Christine Beuermann <Christine.Beuermann@utas.edu.au> |
To: | Neil Foster <Neil.Foster@newcastle.edu.au> |
obligations@uwo.ca | |
Date: | 21/06/2012 01:01:05 UTC |
Subject: | RE: Vicarious Liability for workplace prank, VSCA |
Thanks for this Neil.
The case does a wonderful job of demonstrating just how little guidance judges currently have in determining whether so-called ‘vicarious liability’ should
be imposed. It also shows that the ‘connection test’ is not only unhelpful, but has probably made things worse.
It may be, therefore, that it is time to reconsider our understanding of strict liability for the wrongdoing of another in tort and look for a fresh approach.
Cheers
Christine
From: Neil Foster [mailto:Neil.Foster@newcastle.edu.au]
Sent: Friday, 15 June 2012 11:12 AM
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: ODG: Vicarious Liability for workplace prank, VSCA
Dear Colleagues;
The Victorian Court of Appeal has handed down a very interesting judgment in Blake v J R Perry Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] VSCA 122 (14 June 2012) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2012/122.html
on the question of vicarious liability. One truck driver kicked another in the back of the knee while they were both standing around waiting for a ship to arrive. The trial judge found that the employer was not vicariously liable, and this decision was upheld
by the CA, although in a 2-1 ruling with an interesting dissent by Neave JA. There is helpful discussion of the policy and law, and a citation of Paula Giliker's article “Making the right connection: Vicarious liability and institutional responsibility”,
(2009) 17 Torts Law Journal 35 at [79] by Harper JA in the majority. With such a strong dissent it will be interesting to see if the case is appealed further.
Regards
Neil Foster
Neil Foster
Senior Lecturer
Newcastle Law School Faculty of Business & Law
MC158, McMullin Building
University of Newcastle Callaghan NSW 2308 AUSTRALIA
ph 02 4921 7430 fax 02 4921 6931