판결 이유
An employer is vicariously liable for the torts of an employee if there is a sufficiently close connection between the nature of the employment and the wrongful act. The 'close connection' test replaced the older Salmond test of whether the act was an unauthorised mode of performing an authorised act.
사실관계
The claimants were boys who had been residents at a school boarding house owned by the defendants. The warden of the boarding house, an employee, had systematically sexually abused the boys. The question was whether the employers were vicariously liable for the warden's deliberate criminal acts.
판결 요약
The House of Lords held the employers vicariously liable. Lord Steyn held that the sexual abuse was sufficiently closely connected with the warden's employment duties (caring for the boys) to make it fair and just to hold the employers liable. The traditional Salmond test was too narrow for cases of intentional wrongdoing.
주요 인용문
"The question is whether the warden's torts were so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employers vicariously liable."
— Lord Steyn
후속 처리
Applied and developed in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] and Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016].