Vicarious Liability in Sataur v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc. Case

Running head: COMMERCIAL LAW
COMMERCIAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

COMMERCIAL LAW1
Issue
The chief issue in the case of Sataur v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 1017
that had to be decided, was whether an employee of a company can be held personally liable in
relation to lawsuits filed against the company itself, regarding private injury.
Rule
The rule as provided in the case of Bazley v Curry, [1999] 2 SCR 534, provides a
discussion regarding the concept of vicarious liability. In this case, the Court stated that an
organization shall be held accountable vicariously for any act of its employee. In this case, the
Salmond test was discussed. According to this test, an employer shall be accountable for the acts
performed by an employee if such acts are sanctioned by the employer itself. This test states that
even when the actions that are performed by an employee are not sanctioned by the employer,
however such actions are so closely linked to the sanctioned acts that such actions may be
measured as a mode of the actions that are sanctioned by employer. In the given case, the Court
did not accept the idea as provided in the Salmond test. A clarification was provided by the Court
in relation to the test. The clarification states that the Court should comprehend regarding the
policy reasons that determines that whether the concept of vicarious liability should be applied or
not. The clarification also provides that the Court should comprehend in relation to the fact that
whether the action that is wrongful is adequately connected to the employment, which might
justify the imposition of the vicarious liability. The Court specifically mentioned that the
applicability of the concept of vicarious liability shall be suitable only if there is a noteworthy
link between the formation or augmentation of the risk and the wrong that is the consequence of

COMMERCIAL LAW2
the risk. The occurrence of the wrong on the property of the company through related
connections cannot be considered as sufficient cause for vicarious liability.
In the case of London Drugs Ltd. v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., [1992] 3 SCR
299, a decision was provided in relation to vicarious liability of an employer. In this case, a two-
step process or test was forwarded in relation to the exclusion of employees from accountability
involving any risk. These two steps are; firstly, the benefits regarding the limitation in relation to
the liability clause must extend to the employees who are pursuing to depend on it. It may be in
an implied or an expressed manner. Secondly, the employees were performing their actions
during their employment course and the performance of the actions included the provision of
services, which were mentioned in the contract between the employer and the employee during
the occurrence of the loss. If the above-mentioned criteria are met, then the employees shall not
be held accountable and shall be omitted from their accountability.
In the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22, provided discussions in relation
to the vicarious liability of employers for any wrong committed by their employees. In this case,
it was established that the ‘relative closeness’ that connects the tort and the nature of the
employment of an individual shall be the basis of deciding the matter of accountability.
Application
In the case of Sataur v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 1017, Abigail Sataur
suffered an injury after a barista of the Starbucks dropped boiling hot water on the hands of
Abigail Sataur. Sataur began a claim regarding negligence against the barista, the Starbucks and
the manager of the store. The allegation forwarded by Abigail Sataur was that the defendants
separately owed a duty of care to Abigail Sataur and each of the defendants were privately