The Future of Vicarious Liability

• Author: David R. Wingfield
• Pages: 515-542



TheFutureofVicariousLiability

DavidRWingeld*

A. INT RODUCTION

Conventionallegal analysis treats vicarious liability asa species of in-

direct nofault liability the person who is vicar iouslyliable is strictly

responsibletopayfordamagethatwasdirectlycausedbythewrongful

actor omissionof someone elseThough the concepthasbeen around

foravery longtimesincebefore theGreatWari nitsmodern form

lawyersandjudgeshaveagreatdealofdicultyagreeingonwhenitis

appropriatetoimposesuchliabilityIndeedwhenonelooksatthenum-

berofjudgesfrom thet rialtot heultimate appellatecourts incommon

lawjurisdictions whoexamine thesa mefactsbutd isagreeon thelegal

consequencesforthepersononwhomvicar iousliabilityissoughttobe

imposedone is drawn toconclude thatjudges treat vicarious liability

 PartnerWeirFouldsLLPAnearlierversionofthispaperwaspres entedinJune

attheUniversityofWesternO ntarioFacultyofLawa ndwaspublishedasc

inJasonNeyersErikaChamb erlainStephenPiteled sEmerging Issues in Tort

LawOxfordHart

 JohnWilliamSa lmond The Law of Torts stedLondonStevensHay nesat

Seealso Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co. ACHLRFVHeustonRA

Buckleyeds Salmond and Heuston on the Law of TortsstedLondonSweet

MaxwellatSalmond and HeustonAsexplainedi n Salmond and Heuston

thedoctri nehasitsrootsinme dievallawandwasrenedi ntheVictorianera

DRW

likeJusticeStewartsdescriptionofpor nographyButIknowitwhenI

seeitAsonejudgeputitinarecentdecision

Alegalnot ionthatb eganin Romanlawinco nceptsofr esponsibility

fort he actions of slaves and an imals which is st ill replete with th e

languageofservitudeandtalkofservantsandmastersandwhich

hasonlylatelyacceptedthelanguageofemploymentisobviouslyin

needofmorethanverbalrepai randreexpression

It is not hard to understand why this confusion exist s The ordi-

nary viewof tort lawholds thaton lypeople whodi rectlyc ausehar m

toothersbytheirdeliberatelywrongfulornegligentactsshouldbeheld

responsibletopay monetarycompens ationtot hepeoplethey harmed

Vicariousliability challengesthisviewon bothfronts Thepersonwho

isheld vicariously liable isrequ ired topay compensation tosomeone

despitehavingnodirect relationshipwith thatpersonand despitehav-

ingnotactedinadeliberatelywrongfulornegligentfashioninrespectof

thatpersonForthesereasonsitse emsharshtoimposeliabi lityonthis

personandthereforesuchliabil ityisregardedanexceptiontoordinary

principlesoftortliability

Sincevicariousliabilit yiscommonlyunderstoodasan exceptionto

theordinarybasisoftortliabilitycourtsandacademicwritershavetried

tonddierentprinciplesthantheordinarytortprinciplestojustifythe

impositionofsuchliabilityandtoprovideguidanceonwhenitsimposi-

tionisappropriateYettheaempttonddierentprinciplestoexplain

vicarious and ordinar y tort liability has not worked Ithas produced

confusioninthelawnotclarityThereasonforthisisthatordinar ytort

principlesa ndprinc iplesof vicarious liability are in fact based onthe

sameprinciplesofdutyof careandcausation Theseprinciplesprovide

thatwhereapersonwrongfullyint roducesanothertoariskbeyondthe

normalbackgroundrisks thatallpeopleassu measmembersofsociet y

andwherethatriskactual lymaterializesintohar mtotheotherperson

therstpersonisliabletopaydamagestothesecondfortheforeseeable

consequencesofthatharm

Theint roductionof suchri skis acceptedby the SupremeCourt of

Canadaas the ultimate source ofdir ectliabilityand ast heonly basis

 Jacobellis v. OhioUSat

 Sweeney v. Boylan Nominees Pt y. LimitedHCAatparaKirbyJdissent-

inginternalfoo tnotesomiedSweeney

 Childs v. DesormeauxSCCatparaChildsHankevResurceCorp

SCCResurce