Posted By Elizabeth Lithgow On my way to the railway station this morning my husband happened to mention a cas he'd heard about on the radio. Unforunately he couldn't remember the names of the parties involved. Basically, a construction company had been carrying out work for a client and using sub-contractors. The sub-contractor had gone through some trunking and damaged cabling inside. The judgement was vicarious liability I wonder whether this could have any implications for corporate manslaughter cases?

Posted By Davies Edward Brown the employer can be held liable for the actions of his employees causing injury, death or damage to others, providing the actions were committed in the course of employment. The liability is known as vicarious liability.

Posted By Cr8r I don't know all the details about Tebay, but vicarious liability can be used in lots of instances, but in civil law, ie injured persons or relatives seeking compensation from the company responsible for an accident. This is different from being prosecuted for something, which comes under criminal law.

Posted By ivorfire The radio 4 programme did cover the fact that in the past only one employer could be held for vicarious liability. However, due to the recent case the understanding has now been altered so that more than one employer could be held responsible.

Posted By Patrick Guyomard For your interest http://www.bailii.org/ew.../EWCA/Civ/2005/1151.html paragraph 18 Pad

Posted By ken mosley Elizabeth, The case to which I think you refer is a recent court of appeal decision in Viasystems(Tyneside)Ltd v (1)Thermal Transfer Ltd,(2)S&P Darwell, (3)CAT Metalwork services (2005) EWCA 1151. Viasystems subcontracted work to Thermal Transfer who sublet work to S&P. S&P contracted CAT to provide labour for the work. An employee of CAT, who was under the supervision of both CAT and S&P at varying times, negligently caused a flood. Because of the extensive damage Viasystems brought a claim against the three subcontractors. The court of appeal found that the long standing assumption that vicarious liability could only reside with one employer was unfounded and that in this case the vic lib resided with more than one. This case is not an issue of personal injury but one of contract works damage. I hope this helps. Regards Ken

Posted By ken mosley Elizabeth, Yes, an employer may be held civilly and criminally liable for the negligent or unlawful acts/omissions of an employee,even though the employee can be shown to have wilfully disobeyed the express instructions of his employer. Contributory negligence also has a part to play in this.If you have a problem sleeping try reading Section 1 of the Law Reform(contributory negligence) Act 1945. The case in question changes the precedence in common law on vicarious liability allowing dual liability to apply. I wouldn't get too excited yet as the House of Lords could overturn the findings of the Court of appeal and we're back to square one. Ken.