Swimmingpool Co Pty Ltd: Employer Liability Analysis for Employee Act

This case study analyzes the liability of Swimmingpool Co Pty Ltd for the actions of its employee, Martin. The first issue concerns Martin's poor work quality and subsequent customer complaints, potentially holding the company liable under the doctrine of respondent superior if Martin acted within th...Read More

Liability of employers for employee’s
actions

Question A
Issue- The issue in the case of Swimming pool Co Pty Ltd is associated with Martin who has
been provided the responsibility of negotiating with client and performing duties like entering
into contract. However, Martin’s performance has resulted in loss of the company’s clients and
claims made on their part for these losses.
Rule
In this case, the theory of Respondent superior may be taken into consideration. This holds the
employer liable for the actions of the employee, if the employee works within the arena of one’s
employment (Burns, 2010).
Analysis
In this case, Swimming pool Co Pty Ltd can be considered liable for the acts of Martin, if he has
performed all the duties within the area of employment and it has resulted in the loss of the
customers.
Conclusion
Thus, in this case, Swimming pool Co Pty Ltd could be held liable for the act of Martin under
Vicarious liability, if he has acted under his area of duties and it has resulted in loss of the
customers (Giliker, 2010).
Question B
Issue
Another issue in the case of Swimming pool Co Pty Ltd is Martin not complying to the order of
depositing money and breaching the contract with the company by initiating his own business in
the same line.
Rule
2 | P a g e

In case the employee deviates from the contractual terms, it would result providing the company
with a scope getting relieved from the employer’s liability, as such act on the part of the
employee result in breaching the contract and considering it to be voidable.
Analysis
This case can be analysed in context to Vicarious liability and Respondent superior. Undre the
mentioned contexts, it is noticeable that Martin has not complied to specifications of
employment contract (Morgan, 2012).
Conclusion
In regards to vicarious liability, the company is liable for the act of Martin that caused it’s
customer’s damages. However, the company can make claims from Martin for breaching the
employment terms.
3 | P a g e

References
Burns, J. J. (2010). Respondent Superior as an Affirmative Defense: How Employers Immunize
Themselves from Direct Negligence Claims. Mich. L. Rev., 109, 657.
Giliker, P. (2010). Vicarious liability in tort: a comparative perspective (Vol. 69). Cambridge
University Press.
Morgan, P. (2012). Recasting vicarious liability. The Cambridge Law Journal, 71(3), 615-650.
4 | P a g e