BishopAccountability.org
	Employers' Vicarious Liability Lexology May 4, 2010 http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2d5c5791-6295-4e3d-b5ec-5db62ab9bfa6 Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church The Court of Appeal has held that the sexual abuse of a child was so closely connected with a priest's employment that it would be fair and just to hold the Archdiocese, as his employer, vicariously liable. The abuse took place in the 1970s when Maga (M) lived within a parish of the church. M's family were not Catholics and he met the priest while admiring his car. The priest subsequently began to pay M for jobs such as cleaning his car or the presbytery. The Court of Appeal considered the House of Lords' decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd, which sets out the law on employers' vicarious liability. In Lister, the boy was a member of the Church and the legal obligation to care or assumption of responsibility for care was emphasised. In this case however, M had come to the priest's attention in a non-church manner. The test to be applied was whether the employee's actions were so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable. It was decided that a broad approach should be adopted when establishing whether the acts were "within the scope of the employment". Although M was not a Catholic, and at no time had anything to do with the Church itself, there was a sufficiently close connection between the priest's employment with the Church and the abuse inflicted on M to render it fair and just to impose vicarious liability for the abuse on the Archdiocese.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.