26.16Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215
An employer is vicariously liable for the acts of an employee that were closely connected with his employment
Facts: the warden of a school boarding house sexually abused boys in his care, who then sued Hesley on the basis that Hesley was vicariously liable for the warden’s tortious conduct, as the warden’s employer.
Judgment: the House of Lords (Lords Steyn, Clyde, Hutton, Hobhouse and Millett) held that the warden’s acts were so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold Hesley vicariously liable:
28. Employing the traditional methodology of English law, I am satisfied that in the case of the appeals under consideration the evidence showed that the employers entrusted the care of the children in A House to the warden. The question is whether the warden’s torts were so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employers vicariously liable. On the facts of the case the answer is yes. After all, the sexual abuse was inextricably interwoven with the carrying out by the warden of his duties in A House. Matters of degree arise. But the present cases clearly fall on the side of vicarious liability.