In general law, the employer (LJMU) seized to be liable or criminally liable in favor of unlawful or negligent acts of the staff member even if the staff members described to contain willfully disobeyed expressing instructions of the employer. One party turns liable due to another actions and this is nothing but vicarious liability.
When the employers are the party for unlawful or negligent act or assist and abet other unlawful activities then they can suppose personal liability with the help of another person. The Act 1974 of health and safety at the work explains that if a corporate body that is “committed to offence is proved to be committed through connivance or consent of or to be attributable for any neglect on part of, any secretary, director, manager or other same officer of corporate body and the corporate body will be guilty of offence and should be liable for proceeding against and accordingly punished” .
When the staff member negligently acts over a frolic of his or her own independent of job then the employer is considered to be not liable. The Smith vs. Crossley Bros Ltd case portrays that the like a joke the two apprentices that are injected are compressed air into a colleague’s body. The employers are not held to be liable.
For example consider a situation that the alcohol is provided at working hours for the staff. For their self actions in association with alcohol’s consumption the responsible adults are allowed to suppose the responsibility. However there is a situation where the employer turns to responsible. Hence it is verified in the Barrett vs. Defence Ministry case. Here the naval airman spend huge amount of the duty free alcohol then became unconscious and finally died of asphyxiation. After deceased turned into unconscious according to the Appeal Court, employer is responsible for him and to pay changes.