【Acrylic Painting by Dennis Tang】
(Paintings and Photos may not be relevant to the incident described)
In this case, two pedestrians were injured by a limousine driven by a doorman employed by the Ritz Carlton Hotel, where the hotel staff developed a practice of buying food elsewhere and collecting it using the hotel hired limousine.
Both the Court of first instance and the Court of Appeal held that the driving of the limousine by the doorman to collect the food at the time of the accident was an unauthorized act and the Hotel was not vicariously liable for the doorman’s negligence because the doorman had been acting beyond the scope of his employment. The Court of Final Appeal, however, held that such act was still within the scope of his employment with the Hotel, as it was obviously in the interests of the Hotel that its staff were adequately fed.
“Vicarious liability” is that employers were liable for the torts committed by their employees in the course of their employment in various situations when it was so closely connected with the employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable.
