Case Study: Hollis V Vabu Table of ContentsIntroduction 3Case Summary 3Facts 3Issues 3Reports 3Decision 4Critical Analysis 4Commercial Implications 5Legal Implications 6Conclusion 6Bibliography 7Appendix † Research Plan 8IntroductionThe Case of Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd[ 1] confirms the long-established doctrine that employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees during the course of their employment. In comparison to cases such as Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills[2] and Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd[3], which appear to contribute to the development of the application of the common law to changing social conditions, the case of Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd This case can be considered as a step backwards in the affirmation of the traditional notion of "control" in determining the nature of employment relationships. The relationship and the legal and commercial implications prevalent in this case will be critically analyzed below. Case Summary Facts Vabu Pty Ltd, trading as “Crisis Couriers”, operated a parcel and document delivery business using bicycle, motorcycle and motor vehicle couriers. On December 22, 1994, Mr. Hollis was struck on the sidewalk by a cyclist as he exited a building in Ultimo. The unidentified cyclist was wearing a green jacket with “Crisis Couriers” printed on it. The accident resulted in a permanent 25% deficit in Mr Hollis' knee, which required surgery and left him unable to work for a period of time. Mr Hollis sued Vabu Pty Ltd alleging that the company was vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees.IssuesThe High Court focused primarily on the nature of the employment relationship between Vabu Pty Ltd and his court.... .. middle of paper ... ...eddes, R & Hammer, D (2005) Laying down the law. 6th ed. Sydney: LexisNexis[5] CATANZARITI, Joe, 'What's in a name? The independent contractor and employee distinction revisited', Law Society Journal 39(9) October 2001: 46-47[6] Australian Air Express Pty Ltd v Langford 41183/03, 2006 NSWCA 96[7] US v Silk (1946) 3331 US [8] Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Producers and Citizens Co-operative Assurance Co. of Australia Ltd (1919) 26 CLR 110[9] Quarman v Burnett (1840) 6 M & W 499[10] Vabu Pty Ltd v Federal Commission of Taxation (1996) 33 ART 537[11] CHIN, David, 'Employees or Independent Contractors?', Law Society Journal 39(11) December 2001: 68-71[12] CURRAN, Simon, 'When is a duck not a duck? The employee/self-employed dichotomy", Bulletin (Law Society of SA) 26 (9) October 200etin (Law Society of SA) 26 (9) October 2004: 23-26