Editing Vicarious liability (section)

==Employers' liability==
[[Employer]]s are [[wikt:vicarious|vicariously]] liable, under the ''[[respondeat superior]]'' doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of [[employment]] (sometimes referred to as 'scope and course of employment').<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Sykes|first1=Alan O.|title=The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines|journal=Harvard Law Review|date=January 1988|volume=101|issue=3|pages=563–609|doi=10.2307/1341141|jstor=1341141|url=https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=13702&context=journal_articles|url-access=subscription}}</ref> To determine whether the employer is liable, the difference between an independent contractor and an employee is to be drawn. In order to be vicariously liable, there must be a requisite relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor, which could be examined by three tests: Control test, Organisation test, and Sufficient relationship test. An employer may be held liable under principles of vicarious liability if an employee does an authorized act in an unauthorized way.

Employers may also be [[liable]] under the [[common law]] principle represented in the Latin phrase, ''[[qui facit per alium facit per se]]'' (one who acts through another acts in one's own interests). That is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability, in which one person is held liable in [[criminal law]] or [[tort]] for the acts or omissions of another.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Vicarious Liability, Report No. 56 {{!}} Office of Justice Programs|url=https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/vicarious-liability-report-no-56|access-date=2021-08-30|website=www.ojp.gov}}</ref>

In Australia, the 'sufficient relationship' test, entailing the balancing of several factors such as skill levels required in the job, pay schemes, and degree of control granted to the worker, has been the favoured approach.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|44|2001|litigants=[[Hollis v Vabu]] |parallelcite=(2001) 207 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 21 |courtname=auto }}.</ref> For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized or be so connected with an authorized act that it can be considered a mode, though an improper mode, of performing it.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|60|1949|litigants=Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew |parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1949/60.pdf (1949) 79 {{abbr|CLR|Commonwealth Law Reports}} 370] |courtname=auto }}.</ref>

Courts sometimes distinguish between an employee's "detour" vs. "a frolic of their own". For instance, an employer will be held liable if it is shown that the employee had gone on a mere detour in carrying out their duties, such as stopping to buy a beverage or use an [[automated teller machine]] while running a work-related errand, whereas an employee acting in their own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability.<ref>Hilton v. Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd. [1961] 1 W.L.R. 705.</ref>