Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Mattis v Pollock

[2003] 1 WLR 2158

Case summary last updated at 20/01/2020 18:17 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Mattis v Pollock

D employed an unlicensed bouncer, C, who stabbed a person at the club, P. P sued D for the damages as vicariously liable for C. CA held that D was liable following the broad approach, there was sufficient connection between the tortious act and what the employer expected of him or authorised him to do, and it would be “fair and just” to impose such a liability, taking into account the employer-employee relationship.
 
Judge LJ: The test is: “was the assault “so closely connected” with what D authorised or expected of C in the performance of his employment as doorman at his nightclub, that it would be fair and just to conclude that D is vicariously liable for the damage”. The fact that C would have been expected to use violence in the course of his employment anyway suggests that the relationship between the assault and the expected/authorised conduct was sufficiently closely connected. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>