Is the law of vicarious liability satisfactory?

Introduction: While liability in tort normally depends on a breach of duty towards the claimant, vicarious liability (VL) is a system of strict liability by which an entity is made liable for the torts of another , though the entity is not at fault. This question is important because recent developments in the law - namely, the inclusion of relationships ‘akin to employment’ that can trigger VL (Lord Phillips CCWS), as well as liberal interpretations of the test for ‘sufficiently close connection’ between the tort and employment (Lister) which triggers VL - means that the scope of (strict!) liability has gotten much wider.Example conclusion 1: As a system of no-fault liability situated in a largely fault-based system, vicarious liability calls for justification (Atiyah). Predominant theoretical justifications are each flawed. The law is unsatisfactory because a clear, coherent theoretical basis for the law is important to i) guide future decisions ii) provide justifications for decisions. 1. Masters tort - attributing the servant’s act or state of mind to the master. Problem = does not explain deliberate misconduct cases.2. Deterrence - larger economic units are in the best position to reduce tortious conduct, who be motivated to reduce accidents. Problem = folds into fault-based liability, and if this is the reason for the rule, would expect reasonable steps to prevent accidents by the entity would prevent liability (McBride&Bagshaw).3. Enterprise Liability - If you advance your own interests by engaging others in work, and that work carries with it a special risk, then if victims suffer from a loss as a result of such engagement then it is fair that you should compensate them, even if they are injured by activities performed negligently or deliberately. This is meant to be distinct from ‘mere opportunity.’ Problem = Cases like Mohammad (an attack motivated by personal racism held to be ‘sufficiently close’ to trigger VL) undermine this distinction - makes this an unreliable explanation, undermining this theory. (Morgan)4. Victim compensation - Pt. 1 → Deep pockets argument: Vicarious liability owes its existence to the ‘search for a solvent defendant.’ Problem = the ‘surest form of compensation’ is not itself a strong justification for vicarious liability (McKivor)Pt. 2 → Loss Spreading: rather than have the loss fall as a crushing blow to V, the payees are more likely to be able to efficiently spread the loss throughout the community - e.g. by recovering from insurers, who then spread the costs widely by charging higher premiums. Problem: If taken to its logical conclusion this argument should collapse into state liability - state able to spread the losses most widely! (Stevens) Example conclusion 2:  (explain theories as per above) The law needs to take a stand, and ultimately should it should fall in favour of a victim-facing sense of justice. E.g. Lord Hope, extrajudicially: ‘child abuse is an ugly phenomena – there is a heavy responsibility on our legal system to deal as fairly and justly as it can with the consequences.” Law is satisfactory because recent developments extending the scope of VL seem to be motivated by a desire to defend innocent victims, which reflects what is arguably society’s rightful priority.