Why have Vicarious Liability?

A number of policy reasons have been put forward as to why the law recognises the concept of vicarious liability
– why we can consider it “just” that a company or individual is liable despite no wrongdoing on their part. Each
reason overlaps with the others and in some ways, the “deeper pockets” argument underlies every one. This is
the very pragmatic point that employers tend to have more resources and so more ability to pay compensation
than employees. Returning to the example of the supermarket delivery driver, let us say that the claimant suffered
a very severe injury to her spinal cord in the accident. The suggested range of damages for such an injury ranges
into the hundreds of thousands, a sum of money that the average person is highly unlikely to have to hand.
However, a large supermarket chain will have that kind of money that can be paid as damages.

Furthermore, that business is likely to have insurance. In fact, there are often legal requirements that businesses
are insured against certain risk and as we have already seen the courts see insurance as a way of spreading the
cost of individual compensation through a wider community. Other policy reasons we have also seen raised before
also apply here. Employers are usually in business to make a profit, so it seems fair that if they are using their
employees to make money, they should also be culpable if one of those employees hurts someone in the course
of their employment. This also helps to set standards and make employers more careful in ensuring they hire,
train and manage their employees carefully to avoid becoming liable.