Course of Employment and Employer Liability

The "course of employment" requirement is crucial in determining when an employer is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees. This concept aims to balance fairness to employers with the need for victim compensation.

Key considerations:

1. The Salmond test helps determine if actions were within the course of employment
2. Employers may be liable for expressly authorized acts or authorized acts performed in an unauthorized manner
3. The "frolic of his own" principle can protect employers from liability for employee actions entirely outside the scope of employment

Case examples:

• Poland v Parr: Employer held liable when an employee assaulted a boy trying to steal from the employer's wagon
• Limpus v London General: Employer liable when a bus driver caused an accident while racing, despite instructions not to race
• Hilton v Thomas Burton: Employer not held liable, demonstrating the "frolic of his own" principle

Highlight: The "frolic of his own" principle provides some protection for employers, limiting liability when employees act entirely outside their job duties.

Example: In Poland v Parr, the court's decision emphasized the importance of clear employer instructions and the potential consequences of employee interpretation of those instructions.

Vocabulary: "Frolic of his own" - A legal term describing an employee's actions that are so removed from their job duties that the employer cannot be held responsible.

Quote: From Joel v Morison: The servant must be "engaged on his master's business, not on a frolic of his own" for vicarious liability to apply.