A nightclub bouncer, after an argument with a customer about entry, follows him into the car park and assaults him. Applying the close connection test, is the nightclub's operator likely to be vicariously liable?
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: C. Yes, as the assault was closely connected to the bouncer's employment, which involved dealing with customers
- Step 1: Mohamud and Lister v Hesley Hall use the close connection test.
- Step 2: The employer put the employee in a position to deal with customers, and the act followed from that role.
Answer
Yes, as the assault was closely connected to the bouncer's employment, which involved dealing with customers.
Why not the others: Intentional wrongs can be within employment; timing is not decisive; the connection must still be shown.
Practise more Vicarious liability, nuisance and defences.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed SQE1 (Solicitors Qualifying Examination) mock tests.
More Vicarious liability, nuisance and defences questions
- An employee delivering parcels negligently injures a pedestrian while on his round. The pedestrian sues his employer. On what basis might th…
- A lecturer hires a freelance contractor to deliver talks for the university. The contractor makes a negligent remark. Which of the following…
- A company runs a noisy factory. A neighbour who rents a room on a weekly basis from the owner of an adjoining house complains of private nui…
- A farmer's piggery produces a smell that makes a neighbour's garden unusable. Which factor is NOT relevant to deciding whether the interfere…
- Under Rylands v Fletcher, which element must a claimant show?
- Under the Defamation Act 2013, a claimant in defamation must show a statement caused or is likely to cause what?