Do you think Lister v Hesley Hall [2001] UKHL 22 was correctly decided by the House of Lords?
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- The case of Trotman v North Yorkshire County Council
- The employee of a club assaulting two siblings
- A line of decisions taken from the law of bailment
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
SummaryOn the 3rd May 2001, the House of Lords gave their judgment to Lister v Hesley Hall [2001] UKHL 22. By overruling a previous decision of the Court of Appeal; Trotman v North Yorkshire County Council [1999] LGR 584. The House of Lords widened the scope of vicarious liability to include acts of sexual abuse committed during the course of employment.
Lister v Hesley Hall [2001] UKHL 22 involved a school for boys with emotional and behavioral problems. The school was owned by Hesley Hall Limited who employed a warden for the school, Mr. Grain. Unknown to the employers, Mr. Grain sexually abused some of the boys under his care. The victims brought an action against Mr. Grain's employers claiming damages for vicarious liability.
The question before the House of Lords was whether the employers should be held vicariously liable for the acts of his employee. Lord Steyn acknowledged the complexity of issues involving vicarious liability, in balancing two sides, one being compensating a tort victim against a financially responsible defendant and the other being 1the reluctance to unfairly charge business enterprises.
Lister v Hesley Hall [2001] UKHL 22 involved a school for boys with emotional and behavioral problems. The school was owned by Hesley Hall Limited who employed a warden for the school, Mr. Grain. Unknown to the employers, Mr. Grain sexually abused some of the boys under his care. The victims brought an action against Mr. Grain's employers claiming damages for vicarious liability.
The question before the House of Lords was whether the employers should be held vicariously liable for the acts of his employee. Lord Steyn acknowledged the complexity of issues involving vicarious liability, in balancing two sides, one being compensating a tort victim against a financially responsible defendant and the other being 1the reluctance to unfairly charge business enterprises.
Latest in the category business law From the same author
knowledge network
