2.

4 How the Evidence Support the Argument

In demonstrating the evidence to support the author’s argument that the “close
connection” is preferable in this case rather than the “Salmond” test, the author had included
some of the cases that have been proven to apply the test as the solid and tangible
corroboration for his statements. In the article, it has been said that a significant case in
English law that established the “close connection test” in the context of vicarious liability is
the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002], which dealt with the issue of whether an
employer may be held legally responsible for the sexual misbehaviour of an employee. Under
the close connection test, the emphasis switched from the employee’s particular duty to
whether their position and illegal behaviour were sufficiently connected. The Supreme Court
(at present) held that the defendant company was vicariously liable for the actions of their
employee, Thornton. They emphasized that the sexual abuse had occurred during the time
when Thornton was acting in the capacity of a warden and taking advantage of his position of
authority over the boys. The close connection between his employment and the abuse was
evident, and the employer should bear responsibility. The court’s ruling here increased
vicarious responsibility, allowing for a more flexible approach to determine whether an
employer might be held accountable for their workers’ wrongdoing. It recognized that
liability should extend beyond the specific tasks an employee was hired to perform and take
into account the broader context and relationship between the employee and the employer’s
business activities.

Besides that, the author also provided a case in Malaysia that has accepted and
adopted the “close connection” test, the case of Dr. Hari Krishnan & Anor v Megat Noor
Ishak Bin Megat Ibrahim & Anor and Another Appeal [2018], the appellants were doctors
who operated a private medical clinic. In this case, the primary legal issue was whether the
appellants could be held vicariously responsible for their employee’s negligence. Under the
close connection test, the court evaluates factors such as the scope of the employee’s duties,
the time and location of the incident, and whether the employee's actions were closely related
to their employment. The purpose of the test is to determine whether there is a close enough
connection between the employee’s actions and their employment for the employer to be held
liable. The Federal Court held that the negligent act of administering the intravenous injection
by Megat Noor Ishak was within the scope of his employment as a medical assistant. The
court held that the act occurred during the course of his employment and was closely
connected to his assigned duties. Therefore, the court concluded that the appellants were
vicariously liable for the negligence of Megat Noor Ishak.

2.5 Conclusion Made By Author

Regarding this matter, the conclusion that has been mentioned by the author is that the
“close connection” test has replaced the previous vague criteria for determining vicarious
liability. It widens the scope of liability and considers the changing social dynamics in the
workplace and employment relationships. It focuses on determining whether or not there is a
strong relationship between the activities of the person and their position in the company.
This evaluation pertains only to occasions in which a worker has been found guilty of
committing an intentional wrong. Therefore, in order for the Federal Court to determine the
element of vicarious responsibility, it is necessary for the court to first identify the common
factors, which include the fact that the employer posed a danger to the general public and the
dangers that were linked with the employer’s line of work.