Babzley V Curry Case

ans) The leading decisions in this area are now without doubt those of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bazley v Curry, Jacobi v Griffiths, and the House of Lords in Lister v Hesley Hall. However, before these decisions, a number of cases from England and Commonwealth jurisdictions imposed vicarious liability for sexual assaults and some denied it .The Salmond 'unauthorised mode' test did not feature in the courts determinations on liability. What featured was the strength of the connection between the employment and the sexual assaults. In most of the cases, there was no sufficient connection to justify the imposition of liability. In particular, mere opportunity to commit the assaults was not enough. Before the House of Lords decision in Lister,the

The aim of the Foundation was the alteration and replacement of bad behavioural patterns with more socially acceptable behavioural patterns. Mr Curry was employed by the Foundation as a child care counsellor to fulfil the role of parent to the children. Over a period of several months, Curry seduced the plaintiff. He turned bathing routines into sexual sexual abuse. He was dismissed from employment and ultimately prosecuted and convicted for this criminal misconduct. The issue for the Supreme Court was whether the Foundation was vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct of Curry. The court was unanimous in holding that it was indeed vicariously liable. Mclachlin J delivering the judgment of the court, used the 'Salmond' test as a starting point:an employer is vicariously liable for (1) employee acts authorised by the employer; (2) unauthorised acts so connected with authorised acts that they may be regarded as modes of doing an authorised act .Although McLachlin J thought that the prior cases holding employers vicariously liable for the unauthorised acts of employees were of little help in resolving the issue in this case, they do accord with the 'close connection' test that was then propounded. That principle just needed to be drawn out. In doing this, Bazley acknowledges that it is the relationship between the

The boarding house was intended to be a home for the boys and not an extension of the school environment. Grain was employed as the warden of the boarding house. He lived at the boarding house and was responsible, for making sure the boys got up, went to school and to bed, and organised evening activities. Over a period of time, he systematically sexually abused the appellants in the boarding house and was convicted of multiple offences involving sexual abuse. The appellants brought an action against the employers, on the grounds they were vicariously liable for the torts of the warden.The trial judge and the Court of Appeal were bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Trotman, holding that sexual abuse by a teacher could not be regarded as an unauthorised mode of carrying out an authorised act' within the Salmond test for vicarious liability. The House of Lords, however, overruled Trotman and unanimously imposed vicarious