Vicarious liability: how much responsibility must an employer bear?

A recent Court of Appeal decision highlights the increasingly far reaching liability of employers for the actions of their employees. Judgment in JGE v The Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust was handed down on 12 July 2012. The question before the court was whether the church should be responsible for paying damages to a child who was abused by the priest at the church in the 70’s. The court said yes, the (now grown up) victim should be compensated by the church. To many, it would seem intuitive that a victim of child abuse should be able to recover compensation from the wrongdoing organisation.

However, the case actually threw up two key issues, namely: can sexual abuse ever fall within the course of the priest’s duties, and should the church be liable for the priest’s actions? The first question was relatively straightforward to answer, thanks to a recent decision of the higher court. To be clear, an employer is not merely responsible for what its employees do under direct instruction from the employer. An employer is responsible for all actions which the employee takes which have a sufficiently close connection to the employee’s employment.

So in a 2001 case, Lister v Hesley Hall, the House of Lords confirmed that if an employee was entrusted to look after children, the employer would be liable for sexual abuse by the employee when he was supposed to be looking after them, and the victims could obtain damages from the employer. This was despite sexual abuse clearly being outside of the employee’s duties; his actions were sufficiently closely connected to his employment to pin liability on his employer. So, in JGE v The Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust, a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of the priest at the church was, in principle, able to claim damages against the bishop to whom the priest answered. However, the church employed a further argument to avoid liability. The court took expert advice from Roman Catholic academics and found that the priest was not actually an employee (their relationship was intended to be determined by canon law, not civil law, so no employment relationship arose). The court therefore had to decide whether they could extend liability to a situation which was “akin to employment”. In JGE, the Court of Appeal explicitly said “I confess I have found this difficult to decide”.

Although the legal framework is a very real constraint on the court, the judges must have felt huge reluctance to find that a victim of child abuse should not be able to recover damages, particularly when even the barrister for the church described the priest’s actions as “abhorrent”, and rightly too. The court therefore confirmed that liability in relationships “akin to employment” can be found under specific circumstances, and indeed found such liability in this situation. So, even though the priest was specifically held to not be an employee, the church could still be liable for his actions because he was in a position which was “akin to employment”; the key question being one of control.

This decision does, of course, have huge implications for a modern economy. A business (or, indeed, charitable organisation) can no longer absolve itself of the wrongdoings of another simply because that other is not an employee. A business must ensure that all individuals over whom they exercise sufficient control take proper care in the exercise of their duties (and should probably obtain appropriate insurance), even if the business does not employ them. Conversely, an injured victim may now be able to obtain compensation from the organisation which had actual control of a situation, and the organisation which might more properly be expected to be insured. The church has been refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, but specifically because that court is due to give judgment in a similar case, Various Claimants v The Catholic Child Welfare Society and the Institute of Brothers of the Christian Schools & ors, very soon (the hearing was on 23 July 2012).

That case may provide further clarity. It may surprise some readers to learn that the above cases have almost no bearing whatsoever on employment law and the rights and obligations as between employers and employees. This fact serves only to show how complex the law of both employment and personal injury is, and proper advice should be sought if in any doubt whatsoever. Dan Chapman and his Employment Team can assist with all aspects of employment law. If you think you might have a claim for personal injury, contact Dave Richards for a free initial consultation.