[3] The claimants in the instant case had resided there between the years 1979 to 1982, being aged 12 to 15 during this time, under the care of a warden, who was in charge of maintaining discipline and the running of the house.

A preoccupation with conceptualistic reasoning may lead to the absurd conclusion that there can only be vicarious liability if the bank carries on business in defrauding its customers.

Ideas divorced from reality have never held much attraction for judges steeped in the tradition that their task is to deliver principled but practical justice.

[13] Lord Clyde stated three principles in his judgment which he felt should be considered: Of importance is that the employment status of an individual cannot merely have provided the employee with an opportunity to commit a tort.

[14] There must be a connection between the duties of an employee and the tort committed,[15] as restated in the subsequent case of Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam,[16] involving deceit and theft.

In Mattis v Pollock[17] vicarious liability was found where a bouncer, intent on revenge, stabbed a patron of the night club at which he worked.