Vicarious liability in Singapore

Introduction

Vicarious liability refers to an entity that is responsible for another person’s actions that holds a special relationship to them. Take for example, a parent that may be held responsible for the children’s actions. This is not limited to familial ties, it most commonly is imposed between employees and employers relationships. 

How do you prove vicarious responsibility

1. As mentioned above, is there a presence of a special relationship 
2. Is there a sufficient connection between the wrongful act of an employer

Presence of a special relationship 

The presence of a special relationship determines whether vicarious responsibility can be used and imposed on the entity in question. The courts will evaluate this relationship on a few factors:

• Does the employer have the financial means to compensate the third-party that was affected by the employee 
• Was the work done by the employee done by the individual or representing the company 
• Was the employee under the companies control when the wrongful act was committed 
• Was the employer putting the employee at risk of performing the wrongful act when he was hired to perform the said task 

The presence of this special connection ensures that it is fair for the employer to be held vicariously responsible for the wrongful act of the employee. 

Sufficient connections

Once a court finds that a special relationship exists between the defendant and the wrongdoer, it proceeds to the next stage of analysis. At this stage, the court examines whether there was a sufficient link between the wrongful act and the employment relationship, such that the nature of the employment either created or materially increased the risk of the harm occurring.

To assess this, the court will weigh several considerations, including:

• Whether the employer placed the employee in a position that gave them the opportunity to misuse their authority;
• Whether the wrongful act could, in some way, be seen as connected to or advancing the employer’s objectives;
• The degree to which the misconduct was tied to the inherent risks of the employer’s business activities;
• The level of authority or control the employee held over the victim; and
• How susceptible or vulnerable the victim was to the misuse of that authority.

Ultimately, the test is whether there is a close causal connection between the employment relationship and the wrongful conduct. Put simply, the question is whether the role and responsibilities given to the employee played a significant part in enabling or prompting the wrongdoing that caused the harm.