| Sumario: | In Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v BXB, the Supreme Court held that there was a single approach to determining all cases of vicarious liability. No 'tailoring' of that approach was required either because the defendant was a religious organisation or because the tort in question was sexual abuse. It followed that the Court of Appeal had erred in placing significance on the authority conferred by the defendant on the tortfeasor to guide the behaviour of the claimant when determining vicarious liability. This note explores whether there is any role for conferred authority after Barry. To accommodate distinctions in the existing cases and contain further unwarranted expansion, it is argued that it is necessary to recognise a discrete form of strict liability for the tort of another, distinct from vicarious liability, that responds to the potential for conferred authority to be abused.
|
|---|