The doctrine of vicarious liability provides justification for a deviation from the general rule that fault is an indispensable requirement to attach liability to an individual. The doctrine provides that an aggrieved party may hold an employer liable for the wrongful or delictual conduct of its employees. The South African legal system inherited the doctrine of vicarious liability from common-law and the doctrine is deeply rooted in English-law. The South African legal sphere is subject to constant transformation and as a result hereof, the common-law doctrine of vicarious liability should also be subjected to transformation. Uncertainty reigned in relation to whether the judiciary or the legislature carried the burden to develop the doctrine of vicarious liability in order to accommodate the needs of a modern society. The doctrine of vicarious liability is a universal concept and the transformation that the doctrine has undergone in other common-law countries could prove to be useful guidelines to assist with the development of the doctrine within the South African legal context. The doctrine places a tremendous burden on employers by providing that employers can be held accountable for the unlawful and delictual actions of its employees. One of the stumbling blocks that the South African judiciary had to overcome was to determine in which instances the liability of employers should be restricted in relation to the conduct of their employees. It is common cause that the doctrine, due to its onerous nature, cannot be regarded as absolute. Perhaps one of the most significant restrictions that has been placed on the application of the doctrine has been the fact that employers may only be held accountable for the wrongful conduct of its employees in instances where the employee has acted within the scope of his or her employment. The dividing line between acts committed within the scope of employment and acts committed outside of the scope of employment is a very fine line and the judiciary tend to tread carefully upon pronouncing on such matters. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 reiterates the importance of ensuring that the constitutional values of reasonableness and fairness are adhered to. An aggrieved party would be left with deep scars in the event that the individual is prohibited from instituting an action against an employer for harm or loss suffered as a result of a wrongful action of an employee of that employer. The employer would suffer prejudice in the event that the employer is held accountable for the wrongful conduct of an employee which is unrelated to the business of the employer. The answer to the conundrum lies in striking a balance between the prejudice suffered by the aggrieved party and the prejudice suffered by the employer. The aim of the judiciary should be to ensure that restrictions made to the application and interpretation of the doctrine of vicarious liability would be justifiable and reasonable in terms of the Constitution. The balancing of the interests of the employer and the balancing of the interests of the aggrieved parties are essential to ensure that justice prevails. It is common cause that no general test exist in the South African legal sphere in order to determine the liability of an employer for the wrongful conduct of its employees. Due to the complex nature of the doctrine of vicarious liability it can be averred that a general test would not address the technicalities of the doctrine. An important consideration to determine the liability of an employer is to establish whether a sufficiently close connection existed between the duties of the employee and the wrongful conduct of the employee. This factor can be considered as the “golden thread” that must be present to determine the liability of the employer. The doctrine of vicarious liability is a concept which has proved to be imperative in the South African legal sphere. Employers should be held accountable for the wrongful conduct of its employees, but simultaneously the constitutional values of reasonableness and fairness should be adhered to. Even though vicarious liability is an onerous concept for employers, justice would prevail if the values of the Constitution are applied religiously.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:nmmu/vital:20452 |
| Date | January 2016 |
| Creators | Roets, Maria Elizabeth |
| Publisher | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Faculty of Law |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis, Masters, LLM |
| Format | v, 67 leaves, pdf |
| Rights | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University |
Page generated in 0.0026 seconds