Cox v Ministry of Justice

Facts

Mrs Cox was the catering manager at a prison and was responsible for the kitchen, in which prisoners worked as part of their rehabilitation and the running of the prison. A prisoner working in the kitchen carelessly dropped a sack of rice onto her back, injuring her. She sued the Ministry of Justice, which was responsible for the prison service, alleging that it was vicariously liable for the prisoner's negligence.

History

The trial judge held that the Ministry was not vicariously liable. The Court of Appeal allowed Mrs Cox's appeal, and the Ministry of Justice appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the Ministry was vicariously liable for the tort of a prisoner whose work in the prison kitchen was part of the prison's activities, although he was not employed under a contract.

Held

Appeal dismissed. The Ministry was vicariously liable, because the prisoner's work formed an integral part of the prison's activities and was carried out for its benefit, and the risk of his negligence was created by the prison's assigning him that work.

Ratio

• Vicarious liability can arise where a tortfeasor is not an employee but is in a relationship akin to employment, which applies where the defendant has assigned the tortfeasor activities as an integral part of its business, which are carried on for its benefit and which create the risk of the tort.
• The defendant need not be a commercial enterprise, and it is enough that the tortfeasor's activities are carried on for the defendant's purposes and form an integral part of its operations.

The judgments

Key reasoning

• The reasoning of earlier cases extending vicarious liability beyond contracts of employment was reflected in the criteria that the tortfeasor's activities are carried on for the defendant's benefit, as part of its business, and the defendant has created the risk of the tort.
• The prison kitchen was part of the prison's activities and the prisoner's work helped to feed prisoners and reduced costs, so the activities were integral to the prison's functioning and were done for its benefit.
• Although prisoners work under compulsion and are paid little, the question is not whether the relationship is the same as employment in every respect, but whether the features that justify liability, such as the risk created by assigning tasks, are present.

Where it fits in the module

For FHS Tort, Cox is a starred case on employment and relationships akin to employment. It tests the rationale for vicarious liability and the line between employment and independent contracting, and it is the starting point for the later expansion and consolidation of the doctrine in Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60 and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13. Students must be able to assess whether a risk-creation and integration approach is a coherent basis for the doctrine.

Criticisms

• Giving vicarious liability a broad basis in the creation of risk and the integration of the activity into the defendant's enterprise risks reducing the doctrine to a general loss-spreading principle with no clear limits.
• Imposing vicarious liability on the state for a prisoner, who is compelled to work and not subject to the ordinary employment incentives, strains the idea that the relationship is akin to employment.
• Treating the benefit to the defendant as a central feature does not explain why the burden of liability should fall on a public authority which is funded by taxpayers, as opposed to the individual wrongdoer.