Talk:Vicarious liability in English law

A fact from Vicarious liability in English law appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 July 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that under modern principles of vicarious liability in English law, employers are answerable for the intentional wrongdoings of their employees?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/July.

Wikipedia

Vowles v Evans & Welsh Rugby Union

Is Vowles v Evans & Welsh Rugby Union worth a mention where the WRU was found (initially at least, I think it went to appeal, and I'm not sure what happened then) vicariously liable for the (in)actions of the referee, appointed, but not employed, by them? David Underdown (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see looking further that WRU lost their appeal, and further the Lords denied leave to appeal that decision further. http://www.39essex.co.uk/index.php?art_id=197 David Underdown (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I've had the benefit of reading the case (or having heard of it for that matter) but if you can find a suitable place to put it then by all means go ahead :) RichsLaw (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment is at BAILII IANAL (as the saying goes), so I'm not sure I could proerly describe it and its impact. I believe there was an Australian case that tried to use this as a precedent, but it was deicded it that it didn't apply as the injury was caused by an illegal "spear tackle", and there was no evidence of negligence by the referee as in Vowles. I've only coe across it since I'm an amatuer official in another sport, and there was initially quite a lot of concern as to what the long term effects might be, a google search seems to show quite alot of interest in Vowles. There's also Smoldon v Whitworth and Nolan [1997] PIQR P133, which had some similarities, but I don't think it went into the issue of vaciarious liability. This article http://www.prlaw.net/news/articles.php seems to sum things up quite well so far as I can tell. David Underdown (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a read of it later when I get the chance. It may be better suited for an article on sports law (there's a general one at Sports law, but no specifics on English law really), however. RichsLaw (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, though having read this article, and knowing of the case, it seemed intresting to me that Evans was certainly not an employee of the WRU, and the article is framed in such a way that one would assume vicarious liability could only exist where that employer-employee relationship exists, he had been appointed by them to carry out specific duties in relation to the game, but on a voluntary basis (he may have received expenses or a flat fee for the game, I'm not sure, and such might have come directly from the WRU, from the referees' association or possibly direct from the clubs involved). David Underdown (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article could maybe be a bit more clear on the point - and actually this case could help explain it - that it is merely a relationship of employer and employee that must be found, but not that it must exist in fact. Principally, the courts infer such a relationship in the interests of public policy and recovery for victims, even if - as it looks in this case - there was no actual employment. RichsLaw (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contract of service

"Here, it was argued that where a person was in business on their own account (and at their own risk), they would be under a contract for services, whilst otherwise they would be under a contract of service" Is there much distinction between a contract for services and a contract of service - should the latter read 'contract of employment'? --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]