This paper will argue that, in the light of recent case law in the UK and Australia, a new approach is needed when dealing with claims for vicarious liability and non-delegable duties in the law of tort. It will submit that lessons can be learnt from a comparative study of these jurisdictions, notably by reflecting on the courts’ treatment of claims of institutional liability for child sexual abuse. In parallel to decisions of their highest courts, public enquiries in Australia and England and Wales, established to report on historic child sexual abuse and how to engage in best practice, are now reporting their findings which include proposals for victim reparation: see Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Australia, 2017) including its Redress and Civil Litigation Report (2015); Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (Interim report, England and Wales, 2018). The Australian reports suggest reforms not only to state practice, but also to private law. This article will critically examine the operation of vicarious liability and non-delegable duties in England and Wales and Australia and proposals for statutory intervention. It will submit that a more cautious incremental approach is needed to control the ever-expanding doctrine of vicarious liability in UK law and to develop more fully its more restrictive Australian counterpart.

中文翻译：

---

分析英格兰、威尔士和澳大利亚儿童性虐待的机构责任：替代责任、不可委派义务和法定干预

本文将论证，根据英国和澳大利亚最近的判例法，在处理侵权法中的替代责任和不可委派义务的索赔时需要一种新的方法。它将提出，可以从对这些司法管辖区的比较研究中吸取教训，特别是通过反思法院对儿童性虐待机构责任主张的处理。在最高法院做出裁决的同时，澳大利亚、英格兰和威尔士的公共调查机构旨在报告历史上的儿童性虐待以及如何参与最佳实践，现在正在报告他们的调查结果，其中包括受害者赔偿的建议：参见皇家委员会对儿童性虐待的机构回应（澳大利亚，2017 年），包括其补救和民事诉讼报告（2015 年）；对儿童性虐待的独立调查（中期报告，英格兰和威尔士，2018 年）。澳大利亚的报告建议不仅对国家实践进行改革，而且对私法也进行改革。本文将批判性地研究英格兰、威尔士和澳大利亚的替代责任和不可委派职责的运作以及法定干预的建议。它将提出，需要一种更谨慎的渐进方法来控制英国法律中不断扩大的替代责任原则，并更充分地发展其更具限制性的澳大利亚同行。本文将批判性地研究英格兰、威尔士和澳大利亚的替代责任和不可委派职责的运作以及法定干预的建议。它将提出，需要一种更谨慎的渐进方法来控制英国法律中不断扩大的替代责任原则，并更充分地发展其更具限制性的澳大利亚同行。本文将批判性地研究英格兰、威尔士和澳大利亚的替代责任和不可委派职责的运作以及法定干预的建议。它将提出，需要一种更谨慎的渐进方法来控制英国法律中不断扩大的替代责任原则，并更充分地发展其更具限制性的澳大利亚同行。