In Sprod bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Limited , the court was concerning about whether the Security company was vicariously liable for the violent conduct of its employees. The case analysis is to examine the approach to the decision of the court and indicate further developments as well as commercial implications.
The appellant, Mr Sproud was assaulted by two security guards who were employees of the respondent, Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Limited. The appellant was behaving aggressively and rudely in a pizza shop after he got seriously drunk. The two security guards arrived and removed the appellant from the shop. They then took the appellant towards the laneway and finally assaulted him while other two guards employed by the same employer arrived following them and stood watch the assault. Later on the two guards who assaulted the appellant returned to the shop and informed that the appellant would not cause trouble tonight since they kicked his head in. The appellant proposed the employer was vicariously liable for the wrongdoing of its employees against the original judgement of Cooper AJ where the assault was not done in the course of their employment and there was no vicarious liability of the respondent.
Regarding the Appeal,
1. The possibility that the employer is liable for unauthorised acts if they are so connected with authorised acts that they may be regarded as improper modes of doing them ? 2. Whether the security guards assaulted the appellant because of personal animosity or they were acting on behalf of their employer.
According to the words used by Latham CJ in Deatons, it was an act ‘performed on behalf of the employer’ and ‘in the supposed furtherance of the interests of the employer’ . It was not an unprovoked act. However, it was done in the course of the employees duties. The employer would be vicarious liable for it although it was...