Tort - Vicarious Liability - Adam by Claire Turner

Sweet Dreams PLC is a confectionary company. It runs factory tours of its manufacturing premises. Jasmin is a foster carer for Bleakly Council and is currently looking after Matthew, a three year old. Jasmin has taken Matthew on a Sweet Dreams factory tour. Visitors on the tour are warned that people with nut-allergies should avoid certain parts of it, and indicates the points at which they need to take an alternative route with prominent signs and a loud reminder from the tour-guide. However, Jasmin was texting her girlfriend and failed to notice or hear these warnings. As such, she allowed Matthew to enter an area with nuts. Jasmin was well aware that Matthew had a severe peanut allergy. Unfortunately, he suffered anaphylactic shock and almost died. Advise Bleakly Council.

claire43 — 2021-02-04 10:16:53 UTC

Link to Prezi

claire43 — 2023-01-24 11:41:24 UTC

Maga v Archbishop Birmingham

claire43 — 2023-01-24 11:56:31 UTC

Mohamud v Morrison

claire43 — 2023-01-24 12:04:52 UTC

claire43 — 2025-02-04 11:03:54 UTC

Adam is employed by He-Man Gym as a personal trainer. He is fully qualified, came with a good references and a clean criminal record check.

His manager, Adele, explicitly reminded him to put an “Out of Order” notice on a malfunctioning tread-mill before opening up the gym floor, emphasising that this is critical. Nevertheless, Adam failed to do this, with the result that Mavis attempted to use the faulty machine, and was catapulted off, seriously injuring her back.

Later that day, Adam persuaded gym-member, Laura, to have a drink with him after his shift. He promised that he would give her his opinion on some new protein-shakes on the market and went to the pub still wearing his uniform.

He-Man Gym actively encourage their employees to wear their work-T-shirts out and about in order to promote the brand. Whilst they were there, Adam pushed Laura back in her seat, grabbed her shoulders and forcibly kissed her on the mouth. Laura struggled to escape, but Adam just laughed and carried on.

On leaving the pub, Adam met Ryan in the carpark. Ryan said that his girlfriend, Lisa, had fainted and, knowing that personal trainers have basic first-aid skills, asked whether Adam could help. Lisa woke up to find Adam touching her breasts in a sexual way, which had no medical justification.

Issue 1 - negligence - Claimant - Mavis, Defendant - Adam/He Man Gym

claire43 — 2026-02-03 15:37:15 UTC

Negligence -Duty of Care

Yes - Caparo criteria - duty of foreseeable harm and proximate relationship as a user of the gym and clearly health and safety issue so fair just and reasonable

Causation - But for - Barnett v Chelsea

Damages aren't too remote

Step 2 - Employee of the gym

Step 3 - Close connection - Lister v Hesley Hall (Salmond formulation)

Claim 2 - Laura - Trespass to the person (Battery)

claire43 — 2026-02-03 15:44:09 UTC

Prove close connection test (Lister as above)

Unauthorised but claimant will argue is in the course of his employment. Mohamud v Morrison - customer facing role. He has been encouraged to further the business socially which he is doing in the pub by continuing to wear the T shirt. Seamless tale from the gym to the pub.

Mattis v Pollock - carried out criminal act. Encouraged to carry out violent acts to keep control. Here unauthorised method of promoting the business.

Defence - Joel v Morrison - gone on a 'frolic of his own' unconnected with his employment as a personal trainer.

Morrison v Various Claimants - acting for his own purposes.

Claim 3 - Lisa suing He Man Gym

claire43 — 2026-02-03 15:49:43 UTC

Tort - battery

Applicable relationship

Close connection? (Lister)

Claimant - car park part of the pub premises.

He is still in a position of trust - close connection test satisfied

Wasn't first aid - unconnected

Off premises

Off duty - N v CC Merseyside

In car park - new location outside course of his employment (Storey v Ashton)

Would only be able to sue Adam - Trespass