Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10

KEY POINTS

• The key consideration in establishing vicarious liability is the sufficient connection or proximity between the tortious act and the wrongdoer's role within the organisation.

• In the context of the case, Mr. Inder's task was directly related to his assigned role as a prisoner in the kitchen and the catering operation, making the MOJ vicariously liable for his negligence.

• The defendant is not required to be engaged in commercial activities. The advantage gained from the wrongdoer's actions does not have to be in the form of profit. It is enough that the defendant is pursuing its own interests through its actions.

FACTS

• Mrs. Cox, the catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, instructed some prisoners, including Mr. Inder, to move kitchen supplies. While performing the task, Mr. Inder accidentally dropped a sack of rice on Mrs. Cox's back, causing her injury.

• She filed a claim against the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) in the Swansea County Court.

• The court found Mr. Inder negligent but dismissed the claim, ruling that the prison service, an executive agency of the MOJ, was not vicariously liable as the relationship between the prison service and Mr. Inder did not resemble that of an employer and employee.

COMMENTARY

• This case reinforces the idea that vicarious liability extends beyond traditional employment relationships and may apply to other forms of agency or control where the tortfeasor's actions are closely connected to their assigned role or duties.

NOTES

• Vicarious liability is a legal principle that holds an employer or principal liable for the tortious acts committed by its employees or agents during the course of their employment or agency.

• The key factor in determining vicarious liability is the existence of a relationship of employment or agency between the wrongdoer and the entity sought to be held liable.

RELATED CASES

• Armes v Nottinghamshire CC