Why Is Swimmingpool Company Liable For Martin's Actions?

In considering the facts above make some legal observations on the following:

1. Is Swimmingpool Co liable for Martin’s actions? On what basis in law would this be the case?

ISSUE: Whether there is any liability of Swimmingpool Co for Martin’s action?

RULE OF LAW: According to the Law of Tort, Employers are vicariously liable to third parties for the actions of their employees in the course of their employment. (Latimer, 2010). Under the Law of Tort, this is termed as vicarious liability of Employer. If an employee commits any offence or tort that harms or cause damage to the third party, then the employer will be held liable for such act of the employee. This liability generally arises out of the responsibility of superior for the act of

He was given Incharge of Tasmanian Sales Division. While performing his duties, Martin breach the duty of care by negligent misstatement (Shaddock V Parramatta City Council 1981) or negligent advice [MLC v Evatt (1968)] given to his customers. He was accused for giving incorrect information to the customers. Also the construction of the pools was not the same as promised while signing the contract. They noticed that Martin took company’s money for his personal use. Due to this act of omission performed by Martin, customers suffered loss and damages financially and in other ways. Therefore, Swimmingpool Company will be held liable on the basis of the Law of tort. A vicarious liability arises out the relationship of Martin and

“The employer may have a contractual right to claim an indemnity if the employee’s wrongful act amounts to breach of the employee’s contract of service”. (Latimer, 2010), (Lister v Romford Ice and Storage Co Ltd {1957} AC555)

APPLY: As per the Judgment given by Lord Clyde in the case of (Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd) that if employer gives authorization to employee that does not mean he is allowed to do such act. In the case of Martin and Swimmingpool Co, Martin was though present at the office while committing the offence with the permission of the employer, his scope of employment didn’t permit him to commit such an offence. Thus, Swimmingpool Co can claim for being not to be held liable for the act of his employee Martin.

CONCLUSION: The act committed by Martin was not authorized by the company. In fact his scope of employment didn’t permit him to such an act of