Posted By John Doe What does 'accidental' mean?

Posted By Dave Wilson Would suggest not as employers are VL for the torts of their employees, they are not VL for others however they do have common law duties not to harm, injure etc. The Tort in question could lead to an action for damages but VL would not apply. VL basically means that the 'employer' is reponsible for the act / omissions of his employees as long as he is working inside the scope of his employment and any damages injunc would be paid by the EL insurance if an employee was injured whereas if it was a third party the PI insurance would pay I think!

Posted By Dazmo Hello, Not sure if this helps but if I remember rightly there was the case of Jones vs. Combined Optical Industries Ltd 1984. IP was accidentally knocked over by colleague and subsequently injured whilst she was bending down at her machine awaiting its repair. The IP claimed negligence on the part of the employer. IP not successful on grounds that more than accidental personal contact is needed to claim negligence from the employer. Kind regards Dazmo

Posted By Dave Wilson I think we have lost sight of the question, which was basically does VL extend to non employees the answer is No.

Posted By Dave Wilson Yes mate however that is why you should have Public Indemnity insurance as Employers Liability Only protects employees. for instance if say a builder drops a brick of his scaffold and hits another builder from another company he cannot claim VL through the employers EL insurance it would be through another insurance normally PI I think. You still owe them a duty of care etc. I may be wrong but that is my understanding

Posted By Dave Wilson Yes mate

Posted By Salus Vicarious Liability An employer is vicariously liable for negligent acts or omissions by his employee in the course of employment whether or not such act or omission was specifically authorised by the employer. To avoid vicarious liability, an employer must demonstrate either that the employee was not negligent in that the employee was reasonably careful or that the employee was acting in his own right rather than on the employer's business. A way of managing the risk is by trying to push the issue of control back onto the supplier of the worker, which could include the following: • Insofar as possible, the supplier of the employee dictating the workers' method of work • Ensuring that proper training has been given to the worker through a specific clause in the contract for the supply of the worker • Rejecting any worker who the hirer thinks may be unsuitable Ultimately, the issue of vicarious liability is something that will be decided on the facts of each case, but by ensuring that employees are properly trained, a hirer may prevent the negligent act or omission, for which they may held to be liable, happening in the first place. Section 37(1) of HASAWA may be of some interest

Posted By Bob Shillabeer Good afternoon all, Vacarious Liability, as explained by my old and trusted friend Croners, arises when one person (who has not committed a wrongful act) is legally responsible for the acts of another person which cause injury or damage to a third person. There are two general circumstances to consider a) the liability of an employer for the wrongful acts of his employees which are committed in the course of their employment, and b) the liability of the employer for acts of an independent contractor. Croners testifies that the act involved does not need to be authorised by the employer in Kay v ITW Ltd a fork-lift truck driver found the path was obstructed by a lorry, although not authorised to do so the fork-lift truck driver jumped into the lory cab and moved the lorry and in doing so injured a fellow employee. The employer was held liable for the act was for the purpose of the employer's business. The main point is the employer is liable for all acts of his employee if the act was in connection with the employer's business irrespective of who the injured party is another employee, a contractor or a subcontractor to the contractor or even a member of the public.

Posted By Bob Shillabeer Hi All Why are we talking about accidental? Accidents don't just happen they are caused by some act or ommission by an individual or an unsafe condition often created by an individual. So why do people posting responces think accidental means a let off against vicarious liability. To succeed in a case of VL all the appellant has to show is a duty of care was breeched by the employer of the individual who failed to ensure that what he/she did did not result in the injury. A simple case of the employee doing something in the undertaking of the employer's business for the benefit of the employer even if that act was not authorised and in fact could be prohibited. So the accidental thuing is a complete re-herring