Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T11:26:09.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modelling organisational vicarious liability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2019

Christian Witting
Christian Witting*
Affiliation:
Queen Mary University, London, UK
*
*Author email: c.witting@qmul.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper identifies two paradigms of vicarious liability. One is an established paradigm of ‘liberal agency’ found in cases where owner-managers ‘act through’ workers, with whom they have personal relations, in undertaking work tasks. The second paradigm is found in cases concerning bureaucratic organisations, which are characterised by chains of command and variegated decision-making procedures. Courts have grounded organisational responsibility in features such as structure, hierarchy, and control, which this paper uses to construct a model of the ‘deterrable organisation’. The deterrable organisation has important capacities to effect change in behaviour that courts rely on in order to prevent worker wrongdoing. The paper tests the viability of the model against the empirical literature and argues that courts could improve outcomes by a more targeted use of powers to award remedies.

Keywords

tortvicarious liabilityorganisations
Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 694 - 713
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Legal Scholars 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Thanks to: Rob Merkin, Philip Morgan, John Murphy, Martin Petrin, and David Tan; conference participants at the Supreme Court of Queensland, Singapore Management University and University of Edinburgh; and the anonymous reviewers. Dedicated to Emeritus Professor Chris Clarkson.

References

1 Eg Giliker, P ‘Analysing institutional liability for child sexual abuse in England and Wales and Australia: vicarious liability, non-delegable duties and statutory intervention’ (2018) 77 CLJ 506 at 516, 532 and 534CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See Goudkamp, J ‘Case comment: Various Claimants v Barclays Bank Plc’ [2017] JPIL C194 at C196–197Google Scholar.

3 Eg Cane, P Responsibility in Law and Morality (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2002) p 99Google Scholar.

4 Eg Morgan, P ‘Recasting vicarious liability’ (2012) 71 CLJ 615CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldberg, JCP and Zipursky, BC ‘The strict liability in fault and the fault in strict liability’ (2016) 85 Fordham LR 743 at 763–764Google Scholar.

5 This phrase is used in Friedman, LM Impact: How Law Affects Behavior (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2016) p 134CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See eg Smith, SA Contract Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p 5Google Scholar.

7 Dworkin, R Law's Empire (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1998) pp 65–66Google Scholar.

8 Ibid, p 66.

9 Ibid, pp 52 and 66.

10 Smith, above n 6, p 5.

11 Dworkin, above n 7, pp 57 and 70.

12 The term derives from Gray, A Vicarious Liability: Critique and Reform (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2018) p 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12A Plucknett, TFT A Concise History of the Common Law (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 5th edn, 1956) p 166Google Scholar.

13 (1697) 1 Ld Raym 264 at 264–265; 91 ER 1072 at 1073.

14 Plucknett, above n 12A, p 476.

15 Eg M'Manus v Crickett (1800) 1 East 106, 102 ER 43.

16 The centrality of agency reasoning is championed by Gray, above n 12, pp x, 50 and 187, and accepted here as the most cogent justification of classical law. Cf Beuermann, C ‘Tort law in the employment relationship: a response to the potential abuse of an employer's authority’ (2014) 21 TLJ 169Google Scholar.

17 Eg Morgans v Launchbury [1973] AC 127 at 135.

18 Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] AC 677 at [44]–[45] (Mohamud).

19 [2019] IRLR 66, esp [17]–[18], [22] and [24].

20 Eg Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2019] IRLR 66.

21 See Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2003] 2 AC 366.

22 Atiyah, PS Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (London: Butterworths, 1967) p 13Google Scholar.

23 See Hollis v Vabu (2001) 207 CLR 21.

24 Hodges, C Law and Corporate Behaviour (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2015) p 38Google Scholar. See also Hatch, MJ Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Views (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 2013) p 103Google Scholar.

25 Gray, above n 12, p 172.

26 Ibid, pp 159 and 172.

27 Ibid, pp 159 and 178.

28 Cane, above n 3, p 99.

29 [2013] 2 AC 1.

30 See Chandler, AD Scale and Scope (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1990) ch 2Google Scholar; Keating, GC ‘The idea of fairness in the law of enterprise liability’ (1997) 95 Mich LR 1266 at 1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Mintzberg, H The Structuring of Organizations (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1979) pp 242–244Google Scholar.

32 Kornhauser, LA ‘An economic analysis of the choice between enterprise and personal liability for accidents’ (1982) 70 Cal LR 1345 at 1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Eg Giliker, P Vicarious Liability in Tort (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) p 82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Eg Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2013] 2 AC 1 (CCWS).

35 ‘Worker’ is a term encompassing persons at all levels within organisations but, for expositional purposes, a contrast is drawn frequently between ‘managers’ and ‘workers’.

36 Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215.

37 Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2019] IRLR 66 at [17].

38 Eg CCWS, above n 34; Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2018] AC 355 (Armes).

39 CCWS, above n 34, at [34].

40 Ibid, at [34].

41 Ibid, at [89].

42 Ibid, at [2].

43 Ibid, at [89].

44 Eg Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] AC 660 at [21].

45 Mutua v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2012] EWHC 2678 (QB) at 82.

46 [2018] AC 355 at [10].

47 Eg Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] AC 660 at [22]–[24].

48 Ibid, at [34].

49 CCWS, above n 34, at [87].

50 Armes [2018] AC 355 at [61].

51 Ibid, at [67].

52 Goldberg, JCP ‘Twentieth-century tort theory’ (2003) 91 Geo LJ 513 at 525Google Scholar.

53 [2008] EWCA Civ 689 at [26].

54 [2018] EMLR 12 at [184] (affirmed [2018] EWCA Civ 2339).

55 See Waddams, S Dimensions of Private Law: Categories and Concepts in Anglo-American Legal Reasoning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) p 102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Eg Gordley, J Foundations of Private Law: Property, Tort, Contract, Unjust Enrichment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) p 205Google Scholar.

57 Priest, GL ‘The invention of enterprise liability: a critical history of the intellectual foundations of modern tort law’ (1985) 14 J Legal Stud 461CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is the ‘most influential’ theory of vicarious liability: Tan, D ‘Taking two bites at the cherry: vicarious liability and non-delegable duty’ (2018) 134 LQR 193 at 195Google Scholar.

58 Eg Keating, above n 30, at 1273 and 1330.

59 Eg Keating, GC ‘The theory of enterprise liability and common law strict liability’ (2001) 54 Vand LR 1285 at 1286Google Scholar.

60 See eg Kornhauser, above n 32, at 1346 and 1349–1350.

61 Morgan, J ‘Vicarious liability for independent contractors?’ [2015] PN 235 at 241Google Scholar.

62 Mendelson, N ‘A control-based approach to shareholder liability for corporate torts’ (2002) 102 Colum LR 1203 at 1253 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Orts, EW Business Persons: A Legal Theory of the Firm (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) p 205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Eg E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity [2013] QB 722 at [109]; cf Tan, D ‘Internalising externalities: an enterprise risk approach to vicarious liability in the 21st century’ (2015) SAcLJ 822 at 841Google Scholar.

65 Goldberg and Zipursky, above n 4, at 763–764.

66 A step not yet taken in the literature.

67 Stone, C ‘The place of enterprise liability in the control of corporate conduct’ (1980) 90 Yale LJ 1 at 5–6, 8 and 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Ibid, at 8.

69 Deakin, S ‘“Enterprise-risk”: the juridical nature of the firm revisited’ (2003) 32 Ind LJ 97 at 97Google Scholar.

70 Ibid, at 101.

71 Eg Michael v Chief Commissioner of South Wales Police [2015] AC 1732 at [127].

72 Cane, P Key Ideas in Tort Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2017) p 2Google Scholar.

73 Dan-Cohen, M Rights, Persons and Organizations (New Orleans: Quid Pro Quo, 2nd edn, 2016) p 106Google Scholar.

74 See eg Friedman, above n 5, p 97; Hodges, above n 24, p 48.

75 Eg Gray, above n 12.

76 [2002] 1 AC 215 at [55] (emphasis in original).

77 [2002] 2 AC 366 at [47].

78 Cane, above n 3, p 82 (emphasis added); Honoré, T Responsibility and Fault (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1999) p 23Google Scholar.

79 James, F ‘Vicarious liability’ (1954) 28 Tulane LR 161 at 166Google Scholar.

80 [2005] IRLR 398 at para [21].

81 Abraham, KS ‘Individual action and collective responsibility: the dilemma of mass tort reform’ (1987) 73 Virginia LR 845 at 855CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 Giliker, above n 33, p 41.

83 Reason, J Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents (Farnham: Ashgate, 1997) pp 10, 11 and 16–18Google Scholar.

84 Ibid, pp 5 and 10.

85 Bazley v Curry [1999] 2 SCR 534 at [32].

86 Eg Gravil v Carroll [2008] ICR 1222 at [26]–[27].

87 Eg Mohamud [2016] AC 677 at [62]; DeMott, DA ‘Organizational incentives to care about the law’ (1997) 60 Law and Contemp Problems 39 at 54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Viscusi, WK and Zeckhauser, RJ ‘Deterring and compensating oil-spill catastrophes: the need for strict and two-tier liability’ (2011) 64 Vand LR 1717 at 1745Google Scholar.

89 Abraham, KS ‘Strict liability in negligence’ (2012) 61 DePaul LR 271Google Scholar.

90 Gilead, I ‘On the justifications of strict liability’ in Koziol, H and Steininger, BC (eds) European Tort Law 2004 (Vienna: Springer, 2004) pp 31 and 48Google Scholar.

91 DeMott, above n 87, at 54.

92 Ibid at 54.

93 Viscusi and Zeckhauser, above n 88, p 1745.

94 Eg Henderson, JA ‘The constitutive dimensions of tort law: promoting private solutions to risk-management problems (2013) 40 Fla St ULR 221 at 221–222Google Scholar.

95 See eg Cane, above n 3, p 184.

96 Dan-Cohen, above n 73, p 121; see also Baldwin, R et al. Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2012) pp 139, 147–148 and 289Google Scholar.

97 Dan-Cohen, above n 73, p 123.

98 Dan-Cohen, above n 73, pp 124 and 125.

99 Goldberg, above n 52, at 524.

100 Baldwin et al, above n 96, p 83.

101 See Macrae, C ‘Regulating resilience? Regulatory work in high-risk arenas’ in Hutter, B (ed) Anticipating Risks and Organising Risk Regulation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) pp 141–143 and 153Google Scholar.

102 Eg Black, J ‘Critical reflections on regulation’ (2002) 27 Aust J Leg Phil 1 at 11Google Scholar.

103 Eg Saurwein, F ‘Regulatory choice for alternative modes of regulation: how context matters’ (2011) 33 Law & Policy 334 at 344CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Rouch, D ‘Self-regulation is dead: long live self-regulation’ (2010) 4 Law & Fin Mkt Rev 102 at 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Fisse, B and Braithwaite, J Corporations, Crime and Accountability (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) p 196Google Scholar.

106 Rouch, above n 104, at 107.

107 Fairman, R and Yapp, C ‘Enforced self-regulation, prescription, and conceptions of compliance within small businesses: the impact of enforcement’ (2005) 27 Law & Policy 491 at 493CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

108 Baldwin et al, above n 96, pp 65 and 266.

109 Saurwein, above n 103, at 336; Black, above n 102, at 8–9.

110 Braithwaite, J Regulatory Capitalism (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2008) p 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111 March, J and Simon, H Organizations (Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 2nd edn, 1993) p 23Google Scholar.

112 Saurwein, above n 103, at 343. See also Parker, C The Open Corporation: Effective Self-regulation and Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) pp 15 and 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 Vaughan, D ‘Organizational rituals of risk and error’ in Hutter, B and Power, M (eds) Organizational Encounters with Risk (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) p 57Google Scholar.

114 Eisenberg, MA ‘Corporate law and social norms’ (1999) 99 Colum LR 1253 at 1257–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115 Eg Friedman, above n 5, p 213; Parker, above n 112, pp 63 and 67.

116 Eg Eisenberg, above n 114, at 1257–1258.

117 Hodges, above n 24, p 53.

118 DeMott, above n 87, at 54.

119 Popper, AF ‘In defense of deterrence’ (2012) 75 Albany LR 101 at 105Google Scholar.

120 Cohen, MA et al. ‘Deepwater drilling: law, policy, and economics of firm organization and safety’ (2011) 64 Vand LR 1853 at 1856Google Scholar.

121 Parker, above n 112, p 115.

122 Scott, WR Institutions and Organizations (Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage, 4th edn, 2014) pp 237–238Google Scholar.

123 Hutter, BM (ed) Anticipating Risks and Organising Risk Regulation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) p 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

124 Dan-Cohen, M ‘Sanctioning corporations’ (2010) 19 J of Law & Policy 15 at 29–30Google Scholar.

125 Compare eg Gravil v Carrol [2008] ICR 1222.

126 Eg Parker, above n 112, p 254.

127 Simon, HA Administrative Behavior (New York: Free Press, 4th edn, 1997) pp 265–267Google Scholar.

128 Pugh, DS ‘Does context determine form?’ in Pugh, DS (ed) Organization Theory: Selected Classic Readings (London: Penguin, 5th edn, 2007) p 34Google Scholar.

129 Bainbridge, SM ‘Why a board? Group decision-making in corporate governance’ (2002) 55 Vand LR 1 at 7Google Scholar.

130 Simon, above n 127, p 218; Bainbridge, above n 129, at 20.

131 Mintzberg, above n 31, p 58.

132 Hatch, above n 24, pp 113 and 150–151.

133 Scott, above n 122, p 29; Hatch, above n 24, p 101.

134 Scott, above n 122, p 81.

135 Hatch, above n 24, p 103.

136 Hatch, above n 24, p 102.

137 Hatch, above n 24, pp 99–100; Mintzberg, above n 31, pp 3, 86–87, 270–271 and 276.

138 Mintzberg, above n 31, pp 107–108.

139 Fisse and Braithwaite, above n 105, p 27.

140 See eg Cohen et al, above n 120, at 1856.

141 Fisse and Braithwaite, above n 105, pp 57, 79 and 97.

142 Fisse and Braithwaite, above n 105, p 97.

143 Parker, above n 112, p 116.

144 Cohen et al, above n 120, at 1869.

145 Calabresi, G The Costs of Accidents (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970) p 69Google Scholar.

146 Sykes, AO ‘The boundaries of vicarious liability: an economic analysis of the scope of employment rule and related legal doctrines’ (1988) 101 Harvard LR 563 at 570CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

147 Hatch, above n 24, p 185; Mintzberg, above n 31, p 98.

148 Ibid, p 185.

149 Eg Teubner, G Networks as Connected Contracts (tr M Everson) (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2011)Google Scholar.

150 Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2018] IRLR 947 at [45].

151 Hodges, above n 24, p 49; Parker, above n 112, pp 99 and 223.

152 Hatch, above n 24, pp 92–93 and 242; Isaacs, T Moral Responsibility in Collective Contexts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) p 98Google Scholar.

153 Simon, above n 127, pp 112 and 179 ff.

154 Simon, above n 127, pp 180 and 184–185.

155 Mintzberg, above n 31, pp 190–191.

156 E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity, above n 64, esp at [20].

157 Eisenberg, above n 114, at 1269–1270.

158 Parker, above n 112, p 224.

159 Scott, above n 122, p 199.

160 Ibid, ch 7.

161 Ibid, p 209.

162 E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity, above n 64, at [52].

163 Cardi, WJ et al. ‘Does tort law deter individuals? A behavioral science study’ (2012) 9 J Emp LS 567 at 597Google Scholar.

164 Friedman, above n 5, p 76.

165 Ibid, p 16.

166 Ibid, pp 17–20.

167 Cardi et al, above n 163, at 570–571.

168 Friedman, above n 5, p 137; Cardi et al, above n 163, at 574.

169 Spriggs, JF ‘The supreme court and federal administrative agencies: a resource-based analysis of judicial impact’ (1996) 40 Am J Political Science 1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

170 Hodges, above n 24, p 39.

171 Ibid, p 143.

172 Ibid, p 40.

173 Kagan, RA et al. ‘Fear, duty, and regulatory compliance’ in Parker, C and Nielson, V Lehman (eds) Explaining Compliance: Business Responses to Regulation (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2011) ch 2Google Scholar.

174 Friedman, above n 5, pp 164 and 173; Parker, above n 112, p 77.

175 Parker, above n 112, p 96.

176 Fairman and Yapp, above n 107, at 510.

177 Friedman, above n 5, p 213.

178 See Fairman and Yapp, above n 107.

179 Friedman, above n 5, p 146; Parker, above n 112, p 147.

180 Simon, above n 127, p 90.

181 Friedman, above n 5, p 243.

182 Simon, above n 127, pp 89, 93–102 and 106–117.

183 MT Hannan and J Freeman ‘The population ecology of organizations’ in Pugh (ed), above n 128, pp 186–188.

184 Arlen, JH and MacLeod, WB ‘Beyond master-servant: a critique of vicarious liability’ in Madden, MS (ed) Exploring Tort Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) p 118Google Scholar.

185 Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants, above n 150.

186 Giliker, above n 33, p 242.

187 W Kirkman ‘Public bodies forced to self-insure due to government cost cutting’ (Insurance Post, 2 February 2017), available at https://www.postonline.co.uk/2481181/public-bodies-forced-to-self-insure-due-to-government-cost-cutting.

188 I thank Rob Merkin for these points.

189 Merkin, R and Steele, J Insurance and the Law of Obligations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) pp 141 and 322CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

190 Ibid, p 43.

191 Hanson, JD and Logue, KD ‘The first-party insurance externality: an economic justification for enterprise liability (1990) 76 Cornell LR 129 at 142Google Scholar.

192 Coffee, JC Jr ‘“No soul to damn no body to kick”: an unscandalized inquiry into the problem of corporate punishment’ (1981) 79 Mich LR 386 at 433CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

193 Arlen and MacLeod, above n 184, p 114.

194 Ibid, p 115.

195 Ibid, p 136.

196 Tutin, M ‘Vicarious liability: an ever-expanding concept?’ (2016) 45 Ind LJ 556 at 563Google Scholar.

197 Eg 671122 Ontario Ltd v Sagaz Industries Canada Inc [2001] 2 SCR 983 at [34]–[35].

198 Rowlands v Chief Constable of Merseyside [2007] 1 WLR 1065 at [47] (Rowlands). See also Racz v Home Office [1994] 2 AC 45.

199 Rowlands, ibid, at [47].

200 Senior Courts Act 1981, s 37(1).

201 Burrows, A (ed) Principles of The English Law of Obligations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) pp 372 and 386Google Scholar.

202 Senior Courts Act 1981, s 19. See CPR 40.20.

203 Burrows, above n 201, p 389.

204 San Juan v Allen [2016] EWHC 1502 (Ch).

205 Garrett, BL ‘The corporate criminal as scapegoat’ (2015) 101 Virginia LR 1789 at 1838Google Scholar.

206 Crime and Courts Act 2013, s 45 and Sch 17.

207 In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig ‘Deepwater Horizon’ F Supp 3d 657 (ED La 2014).

208 Parker, above n 112, pp 234, 282–283.

209 Garrett, above n 205, at 1839.

210 Fisse and Braithwaite, above n 105, pp 194 and 196.