Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees.

To this end, the courts must find a sufficient relationship to this effect, where issues of vicarious liability are raised.

Historically, most actions alleging vicarious liability for intentional torts failed, primarily on the grounds that no employer employs an individual to be dishonest, or to commit crimes.

"Morris v CW Martin Sons Ltd", for example establishes vicarious liability of thefts by an employee, where there is a non-delegable duty to keep the claimant's possessions safe.

The importance vested in Salmond's test was not reconsidered until "Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd", a case involving vicarious liability for sexual abuse.

Vicarious liability was imposed based on the employee's implied authority to protect his master's goods.

Theft. As noted, liability for theft has been found not primarily under the principles of course of employment, and vicarious liability, but via a non-delegable duty of employers to ensure that a third party's goods are kept safe.

"Morris v CW Martin Sons Ltd", involving an employee who stole a fur coat from a dry cleaners, saw the establishment of this principle, with Lord Denning stating: Vicarious liability for theft has also been found due to poor selections of employees by an employer, as in "Nahhas v Pier House Management".

Thereupon, the test for vicarious liability of fraud was whether it was within an employee's authority – either actual, or outwardly appearing – to carry out the fraudulent actions that he did.

Richard Weaver in "Films and Filming" praised the realism of the film, describing it as "crime at its most blatant", whilst George Melly writing in "The Observer" confessed to vicarious enjoyment of it, but admitted it was "like a bottle of neat gin swallowed before breakfast. It's intoxicating all right, but it'll do you no good".