Vicarious Liability: Analysis of Employment and Agency Law Concepts

This essay provides an in-depth analysis of vicarious liability, a crucial concept in employment and agency law. It begins by defining vicarious liability as holding a person accountable for damages caused by another, often in an employment context where employers are responsible for their employees' actions. The essay explores the 'respondeat superior' principle, highlighting the three key components: the existence of an employer-employee relationship, a tortious act, and the act occurring within the scope of employment. It then examines the leading Canadian case of Bazley v. Curry, which established employer accountability for risks associated with their business ventures. The essay also references the K.L. v. 1163957799 Quebec Inc. case, illustrating how employers can be held vicariously liable for actions at company-sponsored events. Furthermore, it discusses the legal maxim "Qui facit per alium facit per se," emphasizing the fiduciary relationship between principals and agents, as seen in Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Lockhart. The essay concludes by underscoring that vicarious liability stems from the employer's authority or control over the wrongdoer, even if the employer did not personally commit the wrongful act. The essay is well-supported by citations and legal precedents.

Running Head: Vicarious Liability
[Type the company name]
CONCEPT OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY- EMPLOYMENT & AGENCY LAW
[Type the document subtitle]
System
[Pick the date]

Vicarious Liability
Vicarious liability is holding a person liable and accountable for damages (compensation) or
harm /injury caused by other individual. In Latin term this concept is known as “respondeat
superior”. The concept mostly embedded in employment relationship where employers are
responsible for the conduct or act of their employees during the tenure of employment.
(Vicarious Liability) . In agency law, employer becomes principal and employee becomes
agents. The agent is authorized to represent the principal to other. If agent enters into a contract
with the third party then it is assumed that principal has entered into the contract even if the third
party and principal have never met. So, the principal will be liable for any wrong done by agent.
This is the doctrine of vicarious liability.
Vicarious Liability is a compilation by three components -
1. There should be relationship between employer and employee
2. There should be tortuous act
3. The act must be done within in duration of employment.
The leading case on vicarious liability in Canada came in the Apex Court’s case, Bazley v. Curry
(1999) (Bazley v. Curry, 1999) in which Justice McLachlin held that “employers may fairly be
accountable where the act comes under the risk or hazard that business’ venture makes and
exacerbates. The inquiry for each situation is if there is an association between the business
venture and that misconduct which legitimizes inconvenience of vicarious liability on employer
for any misconduct, regarding reasonable portion of results of the hazard and additionally
prevention. In recent case of K.L. v. 1163957799 Quebec Inc. (2015) ONSC 2417 (K.L. v.
1163957799 Quebec Inc., 2015), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the employer
2

Vicarious Liability
Calypso Water Park Inc. could be held liable for vicarious liability. In this case, plaintiff K.L.
affirms that she was assaulted by her manager at the park. The supposed assault occurred amid
end of staff party facilitated on park’s ground. Justice Patrick Smith held that Calypso’s decision
in facilitating a gathering at the working environment with unlimited liquor and without
sufficient supervision were factors that could prompt a finding of vicarious liability.
Legal maxim “Qui facit per alium facit per se” which literally can be translated as “the act of an
agent is the act of the principal. There is fiduciary relationship between principal and agent as
agency law is basically based on trust and faith. This principal of agency law was briefly
discussed in Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Lockhart (1942) AC 591 (Canadian Pacific
Railway Co. v Lockhart, 1942). Claimants were boys who were living at a boarding house which
was under surveillance of warden. Warden was held liable for sexually abuse of boys and the
court held that the employers were vicariously liable for the act of the warden.
It can be concluded by stating that concept of vicarious liability is advocated on the ground that
despite the fact that principal/employer has not personally acted wrongfully but since he was in
actual authority or control of the person doing the wrongful act, his liability for such wrongful
act should not be excluded. The main element to be proven by the parties is that the act is done
during the course of employment.
Bibliography
3

Vicarious Liability
Bazley v. Curry, 534 (The Supreme Court 1999).
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Lockhart, 591 (Privy Council 1942).
K.L. v. 1163957799 Quebec Inc., 2417 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2015).
Vicarious Liability. (n.d.). Retrieved 2019, from Legal Dictonary:
https://legaldictionary.net/vicarious-liability/
4