Torts notes

Concurrent liability  Text [13.45] – [13.65], [13.80] – [13.120]

Vicarious liability is the liability of an employer for a tort committed by an employee within the course of employment
Stevens v Brodribb sawmilling  the existence of control between an employer and employee is not enough to prove a relationship for vicarious liability. Further criteria such as obligation to work, hours to work etc is also considered
Elazac pty ltd v Sheriff  the plaintiff was not an employee but a contractor. He considered himself to be self-employed also everything he did in his work showed that he was an independent worker
Hollis v Vabu  the plaintiff who was hit by a cyclist (cyclist worked for Vabu and was in the course of employment.)
Issue explored = Vicarious liability (requisite relationship).
Was held that there was a requisite relationship due to reasons such as control of Vabu on the employee, the fact that they had to wear Vabus work uniform etc. Thus defendant (Vabu) was held vicariously liable
Sweeney v Boylan nominees  an employer of an independent contractor is not vicariously liable
Limpus v London General Omnibus  employer still held liable for employee even if the actions of the employee was negligent during the time of employment
Oceanic Crest Shipping Co v Pilabara Harbour Service  an employer is not vicariously liable for the employee if the employee exercises some independent discretion or authority
NSW v Lepore  plaintiff (Lepore) was the victim of sexual harassment by a public school teacher.
Issue = Vicarous liability and non delegable duties.
Decision = no vicarious liability because sexual harassment (aka criminal conduct) is outside the scope of the teachers duties. He had no authority and essentially the actions of the teacher had nothing to do with the employment therefore the state could not be held vicariously liable for the teachers actions.
A non-delegable duty is a duty of the school to provide care for the