Here there was a school teacher, forced to take three weeks off school as he was diagnosed with depression caused by stress. The teacher has expressed his worries about his health at a number of meetings, which took place before the summer vacation, but his problems accumulated in November. The House of Lords said that the employer should have identified the prolonged problems suffered by the employee and done something about it.

  Employees sued for the loss of hearing, saying this was caused by them being exposed to a loud environment constantly. They said that the emplyers should have recognised this could be a problem, and that precautions should have been providing protection for ears.

here the Court of Appeal said that if an employee refuses to follow the health and safety regulations then he should get terminated and not just left to be. 

Lord Denning said that it is easy to recognise a contract of service. A taxi man, or a newspaper contributor are employed for a contract for services. Although this person works for the company, but he will not be integrated into it, being only an accessory to it. Created the 'intergral part of the business' test. 

Court of Appeal case, would a nightclub would be liable for a bouncer who committed an act of negligence? This doorman was hired from a security company but he was acting under the order of the nightclub manager. The nightclub company Luminar, had a number of clubs throughout the UK, asking the security company ASE for the provisions of security services, asking for people at the door. The man in this case was involved in an incident where he punched a club goer so hard he suffered permanent damage. The person punched sued both parties for damages. It was held that for practical purposes the club had control over the bouncer, which suggested that he was a temporary employee of Luminar. 

Here, it was said that you must look at two elements (vicarious liability requires two elements):

First, the relationship between the abuser and the defendant is to be examined to see whether it is capable of giving rise to vicarious liability.

Secondly, it is necessary to examine the closeness of the connection between that relationship and the abuser’s act

A driver of the petrol lorry was acting in the course of his employment when he discarded a light match when delivering petrol after lighting a cigarette. This caused an explosion which damaged the car, nearby houses and the petrol station. It was argued that lighting a cigarette is an act of convenience which is not to be treated as an act of frolic.

Are the actions so closely connected with the employment that it is fair and reasonable to hold an employer just and reasonable vicariously liable? Here, the sexual abuse committed by the member of staff at a boarding school was so closely connected to his job that the school could be held liable.

One of the priests molested a young child and the question was whether the church could be held liable. It was held that there was sufficient proximity there because the Court of Appeal said that the priest was never off duty from his priestly responsibility and there was sufficient proximity between his employment as a priest and the sexual abuse to which he subjected during his employment. 

(sufficient proximity between employment as priest and  sexual abuse to which the priest subjected the claimant)

You have the appellant who goes into one of the Morrisons petrol station and asks one of the workers there to print some document for him. He is subject to some racial abuse and gets physically attacked. The employee was told to stop but continued the abuse. It was argued that the employee was wearing the badge of the employer, and it was clear that he is going to talk to customers, but it was held that just because he was employed by this company, it isn’t enough for them to be held liable. There needs to be some connection between the act and the job itself.