Lister v Hesley Hall [2001]

T subjected to sexual abuse by D, warden of
residential home.
Was HH, owner of home, vicariously liable
for tortious acts of its employee D?
House of Lords unanimously held that line
of authority relating to vicarious liability for intentional torts, as
exemplified by Morris, was of general
application and not restricted to bailment cases.
What approach to take regarding ‘course of
employment’ test?
Court must not simply consider whether acts
of sexual abuse were modes of doing an authorised act, but also whether there
existed a close connection between the tort and employee’s duties.
Here, HH had undertaken to care for
resident children and has entrusted that obligation to D.
Defendant’s torts were so closely connected
with his employment that would be fair and just to hold HH vicariously liable.