Young v Box & Co Ltd (1951) involves a claim for damages against an employer, Box & Co Ltd,

for the actions of their employee. Unfortunately, without access to the full case details, the
specific facts and circumstances of the employee's actions and the employer's potential liability
are not entirely clear. This case is significant because it clarifies the approach courts should take
when determining vicarious liability. By establishing a two-step test, Denning LJ provided a
framework for analyzing whether an employer can be held responsible for the actions of their
employees. This framework has been influential in shaping the law on vicarious liability.
Denning L. J stated “To make a master liable for the conduct of his servant the first question
is to see whether the servant is liable. If the answer is yes, the second question is to see
whether the employer must shoulder the servant’s liability”.

An employer is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of employees, within the scope of their
employment, whereas s/he is only liable in exceptional circumstances for the torts of an
independent contractor. This concept has found favour with courts and claimants alike,
because, realistically, the employer is likely to have the money to pay for any claim for
damages, whereas the main tortfeasor, the employee, will not. In Stallion Security (Pty) Limited
v Van Staden (526/2018) [2019] ZASCA 127 the learned judge stated that this does not mean
that the employee will escape liability. The doctrine contradicts two major principles of liability
in tort: namely that a person should only be liable for loss or damage caused by his/her own
acts or omissions; and that a person should only be liable when s/he was at fault.

The test for employer’s liability is ‘whether a reasonable man would say either that the
employee’s act was part and parcel of his employment, in which case the employer was liable,
or that it was so divergent from his employment as to be plainly alien to his employment, and
wholly distinguishable from it, in which case the employer was not liable as discussed in
Harrison v. Michelin Tyre Co. Ltd.

Establishing Employee Liability

Section 2 of the Employment Act defines an employee as any person who has entered into a
contract of service or an apprenticeship contract. The first step in determining vicarious liability
is establishing the employee's liability for the tortious act. This requires proof that the
employee committed a wrongful act or omission that gives rise to liability. In Lister v Hesley Hall
Ltd [2001] UKHL 22, it was discussed that the employee's actions must have caused harm or
damage to another person or property, and the employee must have breached a duty of care
owed to the claimant. Until the employee's liability is established, the question of employer
liability does not arise. This principle underscores the importance of individual responsibility in
tort law, ensuring that the primary wrongdoer is held accountable for their actions before
considering the employer's potential liability. By focusing on the employee's actions, courts can
determine whether the foundation for vicarious liability exists.
Employer Liability

Section 2 of the Employment Act defines an employer as person or group of persons, including
a company or corporation, a public, regional or local authority, a governing body of an
unincorporated association, a partnership, parastatal organisation or other institution or
organisation whatsoever, for whom an employee works or has worked, or normally worked or
sought to work, under a contract of service.

Determining whether the employer is liable for the employee's actions is the second step in
establishing vicarious liability. This involves considering several key factors that examine the
connection between the employee's actions and their employment. A crucial aspect of this
determination is the Scope of Employment, where the court assesses whether the employee
was acting within the scope of their employment when the tort was committed. If the
employee's actions were closely connected to their job duties, the employer is more likely to be
held liable. The Control Test is another important consideration, examining whether the
employer has control over the employee's work, including the power to direct, supervise, and
correct their actions. A high level of control suggests a stronger employment relationship,
increasing the likelihood of employer liability. Furthermore, the court evaluates the Connection
to Employment, determining whether there is a sufficient link between the employee's actions
and their employment duties. A strong connection supports the imposition of vicarious liability
on the employer. In Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48 establishes that an
employer can be vicariously liable for an employee's wrongful acts closely connected to their
employment. This case involved a claim against Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd for vicarious liability
for the dishonest acts of its employees, with the House of Lords ruling in favor of the
respondents and holding the company vicariously liable due to a sufficiently close connection
between the acts and employment.

One of the key considerations in determining an employer's liability is examination of the

Employer-Employee Relationship

A critical aspect of determining vicarious liability is the examination of the employer-employee

relationship. Courts look at various factors to ascertain the nature of this relationship, including
the level of control the employer has over the employee's work, the terms of the employment
contract, and the degree of independence the employee has in performing their duties. In
Valles v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 758 A.2d 1238 Pa. Super. Ct. 2000 it was discussed that
this examination helps courts understand whether the employee is truly an employee or might
be considered an independent contractor, for whom the employer may not be liable. The more
characteristic of an employment relationship that exists, the more likely it is that the employer
will be held vicariously liable for the employee's actions. By scrutinizing the dynamics of the
employer-employee relationship, courts can make informed decisions about the allocation of
responsibility for tortious acts.

In addition to the key considerations outlined above, courts may also consider other factors
when determining vicarious liability. The Nature of the Employee's Job is significant, as the
more closely the employee's actions are tied to their job duties, the more likely the employer
will be held liable. Moreover, the Level of Supervision exercised by the employer over the
employee's work can influence the court's decision. Employers who closely supervise and
control their employees' work may be more likely to be held liable for their employees' actions,
reflecting their responsibility for the employee's conduct. These factors, among others,
contribute to a nuanced understanding of the employment relationship and inform the court's
decision regarding vicarious liability. By considering these elements, courts can ensure that
liability is allocated fairly and in accordance with legal principles. In Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd
[2001] UKHL 22, the House of Lords held that an employer was vicariously liable for the sexual
abuse of children by its employee, the warden of a boarding house, due to the close connection
between the employee's duties and the abuse.

In conclusion, vicarious liability is a crucial concept in that holds employers responsible for the
actions of their employees, provided the employee's actions fall within the scope of their
employment. By establishing a two-step test that first determines the employee's liability and
then assesses the employer's responsibility, courts can fairly allocate liability. The examination
of the employer-employee relationship, including factors such as control, supervision, and
connection to employment, further refines this determination. Ultimately, vicarious liability
ensures that victims have a viable avenue for compensation and incentivizes employers to
maintain safe and responsible work environments, underscoring its significance in the legal
landscape.