ORGANISATIONAL TORTS: VICARIOUS LIABILITY VERSUS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY

ON 18 October 2017, the UK Supreme Court decided Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60. The Court ruled that a local authority could be vicariously liable for intentional torts committed by foster parents against a child whom the authority had placed in their care. The outcome was no...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cambridge law journal 2018-03, Vol.77 (1), p.15-18
Main Author: Deakin, Simon
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Authority
Case and Comment
Child care
Children & youth
Common law
Councils
Duty of care
Employment
Federal court decisions
Foster carers
Foster children
Independent contractors
Insurance claims
Judicial power
Liability
Parents & parenting
State court decisions
Subrogation
Supreme courts
Tort
Torts
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:ON 18 October 2017, the UK Supreme Court decided Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60. The Court ruled that a local authority could be vicariously liable for intentional torts committed by foster parents against a child whom the authority had placed in their care. The outcome was not entirely unexpected. Less than two decades ago it would have been inconceivable. After all, isn't it the case that the common law does not recognise a general principle of liability in tort for the acts of third parties? And that in so far as it does, it holds an employer vicariously liable for a tort committed by an employee in the course of their employment? This is a very long way from the facts of Armes.
ISSN:0008-1973
1469-2139
DOI:10.1017/S0008197318000168