English Tort Law and Employers Liability Act 1969 - Essay Example

Download file to see previous pages in the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22, the Court established a new kind of test to determine the connection between the employee’s act and the employer, to the effect that the employer’s liability extends to the act of his employee provided that the act is closely interwoven to the duties and obligations the latter carry out for and on behalf of the employer. The Lister case involves a warden who sexually abused children under his ward whilst he was serving as the supervising head of a boarding house for troubled children in the Wilsic Hall School in Doncaster. His duties included imposing orders in the boarding house, ensuring that children went to school and participated in evening activities, were in bed on time, and supervising members of the staff. It was held that the warden’s acts of sexually abusing children were done within the course of his employment because they were closely connected with his official duties.

Applying the aforementioned to Gracie’s case, it would seem that activities by Gracie outside of her actual working hours and during break hours cannot be contemplated as work within the course of her employment at the Call Centre because the employer has no control over what she does during her breaks. Therefore, only Gracie can be made liable for tort, which in this case is battery. The tort of trespass of battery has three elements: force; direct application of that force, and; intent to directly apply that force to another. Any touching of another person’s body can amount to the battery if done without the consent of that other party unless the touching was done as a socially acceptable act like the usual jostling that goes on during sales or a hearty slap at the back commonly done by men to congratulate each other (Harpwood 2005 267).

Intent does not necessarily refer to intent to harm but intent to apply direct force to another and neither is harm necessary to prove battery. In the case of Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172, a police officer suspected a woman of solicitation and wanted to question her but she turned to go. He held her arm to prevent her from going but she scratched him instead. The lower court found the woman guilty but on appeal, the police officer was found to be liable for battery for holding her arm although there was no injury on her part. ...Download file to see next pages Read More