Cox v Ministry of Justice

A defendant may be vicariously liable for torts committed by non-employees where the individual’s activities are integrated into and carried on for the defendant’s operation and the defendant, by assigning those activities, has created the risk of the tort; commercial profit and contractual employment are not prerequisites to vicarious liability.

(1) Disposition: The appeal is dismissed and the prison service is vicariously liable for the negligence of the prisoner who injured the claimant. (2) Ratio and primary reasoning: The Supreme Court applied and endorsed the approach in the Christian Brothers case, identifying that vicarious liability can arise outside a contract of employment where: (a) the tortfeasor carries on activities assigned by the defendant as an integral part of the defendant’s operation; (b) those activities are carried on for the defendant’s benefit; and (c) by assigning those activities the defendant has created the risk of the tort. These factors are inter‑related and together supply the justificatory basis for imposing vicarious liability. (3) Application to facts: Prisoners working in the kitchen at Swansea were integrated into the operation of the prison, performed tasks that formed an integral part of providing meals for prisoners, received training and supervision, and thereby were placed in positions where negligent acts were a foreseeable risk. Those factual findings satisfy the Christian Brothers criteria and justify vicarious liability. (4) Rejection of counter‑arguments: The Court rejected submissions that the public‑service, rehabilitative or compulsory nature of prison work, the nominal pay, or concerns about public expenditure preclude vicarious liability. The Court explained that profit motive, contractual employment, or alignment of objectives are not essential; what matters is the integration of the activity into the defendant’s operations and the risk created. (5) Guidance: The Christian Brothers factors should not be applied mechanically; in genuinely novel contexts the court may consider whether imposing vicarious liability would be fair, just and reasonable, but where the criteria are met a further broad fairness inquiry is not routinely required. (6) Order: Appeal dismissed; the prison service remains liable to compensate the claimant for the injury caused by the prisoner’s negligence.