Law:

Section:

(a) Tort.......... ..........-Vicarious liability..........Relationship other than one of employment which could give rise to vicarious liability..........Pre-requisites..........Claimant, who worked for the prison service (an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice) provided catering services to a prison..........Claimant suffered an injury due to negligence of a prisoner..........Whether prison service vicariously liable for prisoner's negligence..........Case of Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society 2013 SCMR 787, laid down five factors to consider whether a relationship other than one of employment could give rise to vicarious liability; first, the defendant was more likely to have the means to compensate the victim than the tortfeasor; second, the tort would have been committed as a result of activity being taken by the tortfeasor on behalf of the defendant; third, the tortfeasor's activity was likely to be part of the business activity of the defendant; fourth, the defendant, by employing the tortfeasor to carry on the activity, would have created the risk of the tort committed by the tortfeasor, and fifth, the employee would, to a greater or lesser degree, have been under the control of the employer..........First and fifth factors were not as significant as the other three inter-related factors..........Relationship other than one of employment was in principle capable of giving rise to vicarious liability where harm was wrongfully done by an individual who carried on activities as an integral part of the business activities carried on by a defendant and for its benefit (rather than his activities being entirely attributable to the conduct of a recognisably independent business of his own or of a third party), and where the commission of the wrongful act was a risk created by the defendant by assigning those activities to the individual in question..........Defendant need not be carrying on activities of a commercial nature and the benefit which it derived from the tortfeasor's activities need not take the form of a profit..........Furthermore payment of a wage was not essential for imposing vicarious liability..........In the present…