In answering the following question, Ace Taxi Company (A) is to be advised as to

their rights and liabilities in respect of Ian’s and Sally injury which was caused by
Vanessa (V).
The tort of negligence has been defined by Winfield as breach of legal duty which
results in damages of the claimant. To prove a claim of negligence claimant must
prove three things, such as defendant owes the claimant a duty of care and
defendant breached the duty which caused damages caused by defendant’s
breach, to the claimant and it was not too remote.
At first, Sally’s claim against Vanessa for negligence will be discussed. Sally needs
to prove that V owed Sally a Duty of care as per Nettleship , the driver owes a
duty to everyone on the road therefore it is most likely that V had a duty towards
Sally. In the present case a reasonable driver would not have panicked and would
have checked other, road before diverting the car. However, V failed in ensuring
both of the above therefore it is most likely that V breached the duty. As per Cork
v Kirby we need to satisfy the ‘but for test’ that is but for V had carefully diverted
the car Sally would not have been injured. Moreover, the damage was
foreseeable and not too remote Wagon Mound No. 2, thus Sally can successfully
claim for negligence. Furthermore there is no doubt that V’s action was
intentional and direct application of force to Sally therefore it is most likely that
she will be sued for battery.
Secondly Ian’s claim against V for false imprisonment needs to be proved. For
slamming the car door and forcing Ian to stay inside the car against his protest V
may be sued for false imprisonment. The tort of false imprisonment is concerned
with C’s right to freedom of movement. It is not an excuse that the defendant had
wrongfully assumed in good faith that he had legal right to detain the claimant Ex.
p. Evans. Thus, here as V had deprived Ian’s freedom of movement by slamming
the door he can sue for false imprisonment.
Therefore, Ian’s claim against V for negligence will also be discussed. For hurting
Ian’s hand with car door and causing bad injury V may be sued for negligence. As
a driver she had duty towards the client as discussed before in the case of
Nettleship. V had breached the duty by slamming the door and restricting free
movement of Ian as a reasonable driver would not have slammed the door to hurt
the client. Thus, Ian would have successful claim against V in negligence.
Finally, Vicarious liability is a tortuous liability imposed on the employer for the
tort committed by the employee. To succeed in a claim of vicarious liability, it
must be shown that V was employee of A and he committed a tort and the tort
committed in the course of his employment. Initially, in order to identify whether
a person is an employee or not, the test was used was one of control. Where the
employer had control over the work and was in a position to law to lay down how
and when the task should be done, the person doing the work would be an
employee, Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National
Insurances. In our fact, it can be seen that she indeed was an employee of A. The
second requirement has been established in the beginning of the answer .
Lastly, it must be shown that Vanessa committed the tort in the course of her
employment. As per Salmond test, if a wrongful act is authorised by the employer
or if an unauthorised way of doing an authorised act by employer Bayler. From
the scenario, it can be said that V was doing the act by an unauthorised way
which was not dictated by employer. In Lister, the HL held that where the tort
committed is where closely linked to the duties of an employee, the employer
should be held vicariously liable. From the above scenario, it was clearly seen that
there was closely link with the duty. However, an act may be within the course of
employment even though it has been expressly prohibited by the employerIn
Limpus it was held that if tort is committed as part of business activity of
employer, during course of employment the employer can be made vicariously
liable. While V’s job is primarily concerned driving the taxi and proper treatment
of the passenger, the A company will likely be vicariously liable for V’s case
against Sally and Ian and false imprisonment of Ian.A can be liable for the battery
committed against Sally by their employee V. Similar facts can be seen in the case
of (Mohammad v WM), in this case it was held that if the concerned employee
comes across the victim during executing his business responsibility then the,
gross abusive action of employees position connection with business can result
into a claim for vicarious liability.
Thus, it is likely that A can be made vicariously liable for the battery against Sally.
The most compelling argument in favour of the doctrine is the benefit and burden
theory which states that employers derive benefit from the employee’s work,
they should bear the burden as well. Another is called the deep pocket theory as
employers are in a better position to compensate. Moreover, employer should be
answerable if the risk increases due to the employment. Thus, it seem more fair
and just if A taxi company compensates for the damages caused by V.