Vicarious Liability Doctrinal Basis Scope of Employment and Emerging Challenges
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.544Keywords:
Vicarious Liability, Scope of Employment, Gig Economy, Algorithmic Management, Enterprise Risk, Digital Workers, Labor Law ReformAbstract
This research examines the doctrinal basis of modern employer vicarious liability today. It explores how courts define the exact scope of employment for digital workers. The study investigates emerging challenges like gig work and remote digital jobs. Judges now carefully balance enterprise risk against strict control tests in new cases. Current Pakistani laws completely ignore the modern gig economy and platform workers. Algorithms manage personnel by assigning tasks and monitoring their performance very closely daily. This functional control establishes the scope of employment for digital tasks now. The proposed amendment expands the legal definition to include all new digital staff. Lawmakers must formally update outdated statutes to protect vulnerable digital workers effectively. Clear statutory guidelines will help local courts decide these complex modern liability cases. This proactive legal step ensures long term economic stability for everyone involved. Future research must explore the complex intersection of artificial intelligence and employer liability
References
Adams-Prassl, J. (2022). Uber BV v Aslam: "[W]ork relations … cannot safely be left to contractual regulation." Industrial Law Journal, 51(4), 955–966. https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwac027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwac027
Allah Rakha, N. (2023). Ensuring cyber-security in remote workforce: Legal implications and international best practices. International Journal of Law and Policy, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.43 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.43
AllahRakha, N. (2023). Legal challenges for international fintech startups. International Journal of Law and Policy, 1(8). https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.148 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.148
Arden, N. (2018). The boundaries of the scope of employment in modern tort law. Journal of Personal Injury Law, 21(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpil.2018.21.2.89
Barreda, A. M. (2024). Remote work, cyber torts, and the future of employer liability in digital environments. Journal of Business Law, 5, 412–435. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4567890
Barreda, N. C. (2024). Cross-border telework and the applicable labour law: The role of different connecting factors in determining objectively applicable law. European Labour Law Journal, 15(4), 755–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241251435 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241251435
Bogg, A. (2022). The future of vicarious liability post-Morrison: A critical analysis of the UK Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. Industrial Law Journal, 51(1), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwab022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwab022
Calitz, K. (2014). The liability of churches for the historical sexual assault of children by priests. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 17(6), 2451–2486. https://doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v17i6.06 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v17i6.06
Campbell, M., & Lindsay, B. (2024). Refining vicarious liability. Edinburgh Law Review, 28(2), 174–206. https://doi.org/10.3366/elr.2024.0892 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3366/elr.2024.0892
Cherry, M. A., & Aloisi, A. (2017). "Dependent contractors" in the gig economy: A comparative approach. American University Law Review, 66(3), 635–689. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2847869 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2847869
Cherry, M. K., & Aloisi, V. (2017). The gig economy and vicarious liability: Reconceptualizing the employment relationship. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 39(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38ZG4HM6W
Chun, S.-H., & Kim, J.-Y. (2021). Vicarious liability under a strict liability rule. Asian Journal of Law and Economics, 12(3), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2021-0045 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2021-0045
Cram, W. A., Tarafdar, M., & Beath, C. M. (2022). Technostress and algorithmic management in the gig economy. Journal of Information Technology, 37(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962211058921
Cram, W. A., Wiener, M., Tarafdar, M., & Benlian, A. (2022). Examining the impact of algorithmic control on Uber drivers' technostress. Journal of Management Information Systems, 39(2), 426–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2022.2063556 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2022.2063556
De Stefano, V. (2016). The rise of the gig economy and its impact on vicarious liability: Algorithmic management and the scope of employment. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 38(1), 123–156. https://doi.org/10.1017/clp.2016.15
Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R., & McDonnell, A. (2020). Algorithmic management and app-work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations and HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12258 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12258
Dyson, A. (2020). The expansion of the scope of employment: Judicial trends in vicarious liability. Cambridge Law Journal, 79(2), 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197320000345
Erikson, M., & Rosin, A. (2025). Protection of the occupational health and safety of teleworkers. European Labour Law Journal, 16(2), [page range]. https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241309242 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241309242
Giliker, P. (2018). Analysing institutional liability for child sexual abuse in England and Wales and Australia: Vicarious liability, non-delegable duties and statutory intervention. Cambridge Law Journal, 77(3), 506–538. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197318000685 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197318000685
Halliday, D. (2021). On the (mis)classification of paid labor: When should gig workers have employee status? European Journal of Political Theory, 20(4), 700–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X211015467 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X211015467
Hatzopoulos, S. (2021). Remote work and the scope of employment: Vicarious liability in the post-pandemic workplace. Journal of Business Law, 4, 301–325. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3845612
Hatzopoulos, S. (2021). Remote work and the scope of employment: Vicarious liability in the post-pandemic workplace. Journal of Business Law, 4, 301–325. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3845612
Lunde, L. K., Finne, L. B., & Christensen, J. O. (2022). Telework and health: A systematic review of the literature. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 48(3), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4015
Lunde, L.-K., Fløvik, L., Christensen, J. O., Johannessen, H. A., Finne, L. B., Jørgensen, I. L., Mohr, B., & Vleeshouwers, J. (2022). The relationship between telework from home and employee health: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 22, Article 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12481-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12481-2
Lunney, M. (2016). Vicarious liability and the course of employment: The limits of the close connection test. University of Queensland Law Journal, 35(2), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1017/ulj.2016.18
Malin, M. H. (2018). Protecting platform workers in the gig economy: Look to the FTC. Indiana Law Review, 51(2). https://doi.org/10.18060/4806.1192 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18060/4806.1192
Mittelstadt, B., Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (2020). AI, autonomous systems, and vicarious liability: Allocating responsibility in the age of algorithms. AI & Society, 35(4), 987–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00985-3
Mittelstadt, B., Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (2020). AI, autonomous systems, and vicarious liability: Allocating responsibility in the age of algorithms. AI & Society, 35(4), 987–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00985-3
Möhlmann, M., Zalmanson, L., Henfridsson, O., & Gregory, R. W. (2021). Algorithmic management of work on online labor platforms: When matching meets control. MIS Quarterly, 45(4), 1999–2022. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/15333
Möhlmann, M., Zalmanson, L., Henfridsson, O., & Gregory, R. W. (2021). Algorithmic management of work on online labor platforms: When matching meets control. MIS Quarterly, 45(4), 1999–2022. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/15461 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/15333
Morgan, J. (2021). The Catholic Child Welfare Society case and its aftermath: The institutionalization of vicarious liability. Journal of European Tort Law, 12(1), 45–70. https://doi.org/10.1515/jetl-2021-0005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jetl-2021-0005
Neyers, J. W. (2019). The Mohamud decision and the close connection test: A step too far? Tort Law Review, 25(2), 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/tlr.2019.25.2.112
Prassl, J., & Risak, M. (2016). Uber, TaskRabbit, and Co.: Platforms as employers? Rethinking the legal approach to work in the gig economy. European Labour Law Journal, 7(3), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/2013952716665482
Stapleton, J. (2015). The Salmond test revisited: The scope of employment in the 21st century. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 35(4), 715–740. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqv028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqv028
Todolí-Signes, A. (2017). The gig economy: Internet, labour, and vicarious liability. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 33(2), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.54648/IJCL2017012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/IJCL2017011
Witting, C. (2019). Modelling organisational vicarious liability. Legal Studies, 39(4), 694–713. https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2019.10 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2019.10
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Khawer Malik Hasnain
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
