top of page
  • Writer's pictureRobert Spicer

Vicarious liability: self-employed beauty therapist


Vicarious liability

Employment status

Case Grubb v Shannon (2018) Rep LR 48, Glasgow Sheriff Court

Facts G, a beauty therapy customer, claimed compensation from a salon owner for injuries caused by a self-employed beauty therapist in the salon. G had suffered an allergic reaction from dye used in a treatment. G alleged that the therapist had been in breach of her duty of care and that the salon owner was vicariously liable.

Decision 1. The owner was vicariously liable.

  1. It was just, fair and reasonable for vicarious liability to be imposed. There was a relationship akin to employment.

  2. The therapist had undertaken activities entrusted to her by the salon owner as an integral part of business activities and for the benefit of the owner.

  3. The negligence had been a risk created by the owner by assigning those activities.

  4. The therapist’s negligence had been sufficiently closely connected to her relationship with the owner to justify the imposition of vicarious liability.

Recent Posts

See All


Limitation Case TVZ v Manchester City Football Club Ltd [2022] EWHC 7, Hugh Court Facts Eight men who had been sexually abused by a football coach in the 1980s claimed compensation in negligence fro

Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page