It was found, therefore, that the employer "failed to prevent [the accident] or remove the source of it, they were liable to the plaintiff for failing to take proper care of his safety. Yet on the reverse is it fair for the
injured party not to be compensated? Therefore although it may not appear that
vicarious liability is fair on the employer, as has been previously mentioned, employer's can redistribute the burden by altering prices. The future danger is that a 'Compensation Culture' may develop, as can be found in the US, where excessive claims are made against employers and thus the belief that 'companies can afford to, and should pay for compensation' prevails. Vicarious liability is therefore a loss-distribution mechanism. Thus consumers of goods and services will each contribute financially to any possible liability that may arise. Ever since the Employer's
Liability Act in 1880, firms began to invest in liability insurance and thus are able to operate without the threat of a sudden large pay out, rather a constant outgoing which can be reflected in the product price. However, the reasons outlined above aim to show that the issue is not just one of fairness but of necessity, the necessity of compensation, and
vicarious liability is currently the best compromise to meet that necessity. The Multiple Test, derived from decision of J Mackenna in the case of Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd. icarious liability will be analysed below. This is due to the fact that as employers are vicariously liable for their employees, the degree of interviewing and screening of candidates should technically be higher and therefore accidents should occur less. The concept of
vicarious liability is a very complex issue between trying to uphold the right of the victim to seek adequate compensation and conversely trying to protect the employer from being overburdened by their employees. For instance, in Hudson v Ridge Manufaturing Co. ' Therefore, in spite of the milkman conducting his work against the rules imposed by his employers, the boy was able to claim from the employers as the milkman was acting in the course of his employment. "The scope of an
employer's liability is spread even further as even if the employee completes his work in a manner that he has been forbidden to do or in a particularly careless fashion, the employee is still held accountable.
