Tort Liability and Employment Law: Intertwined Concepts

Tort liability and employment law have a long and intertwined history. The "control test," initially used by English courts to determine employee status, originated in tort law. Employers can be held liable for damages caused by their employees to third parties and property, provided an employment relationship exists and the employee acted under the employer's control or direction. The evolution of tort liability has often mirrored developments in employment law.

A crucial element in establishing employer liability is whether the individual who caused the damage was indeed an employee. This determination rests on the definition of "employee" as established by employment law. Civil courts adjudicating tort claims must interpret the Employment and Labor Law to ascertain the existence of an employment contract between the employer and the injured party. The court cannot apply a different standard for employee identification than the one defined in the Employment and Labor Law.

Ato Dereje Chernet v. W/Ro Hiwot Yadeshet illustrates this point. The dispute arose from a claim for damages to the applicant's car, allegedly caused by the respondent's employee. The respondent denied the individual's employee status, making "who is an employee?" a central question.

However, the court's approach to answering this question deviated from established employment law principles. Instead of focusing on the employer's control as a decisive factor in determining the existence of an employment contract, the court relied heavily on an overall assessment of evidence. The appellate court considered the alleged employee's own statements (that he was sent by the respondent and was an employee), his testimony, his police confession, and the testimony of another witness. These "evident facts" were deemed sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff, requiring him to prove the absence of an employment relationship.

The court's reasoning reveals a crucial flaw:

The plaintiff did not present any evidence to prove that the defendant was not his employee and that he was there on that day by accident or in some other way unknown to him.

This statement misplaces the burden of proof. The defendant, having denied the employment relationship, wasn't obligated to prove the absence of such a relationship. Simply stating "he is not my employee" should have been sufficient to shift the burden back to the plaintiff, who was asserting the existence of the employment relationship.

Furthermore, the court overlooked a key element in determining employment status: the presence of a contract of employment and work performed under the employer's direction. The court's focus on evidence, while important, should have been guided by the legal criteria for establishing an employment relationship as defined in the Employment and Labor Law. The court should have explicitly considered whether the alleged employee worked under the respondent's direction pursuant to a contract of employment. This crucial aspect was neglected, leading to a potentially flawed determination of employee status and, consequently, employer liability