The case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd was first tried in 1999 and when it was dismissed it was subject to a appeal and was taken up again in the House of Lords whose resounding decision overturned the Salmond test and for the first time explicitly introduced the test for a close employment connection. There were many cases where the test had been implemented, such as Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co and Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd and others, although until the time of Lister against Hesley Hall, this was only achieved implicitly. Axeholme House, a boarding school annex to Wilsic Hall School owned and managed by Hesley Hall Ltd, opened in 1979 and from then until 1982 the plaintiffs, who were among around 18 boys, all aged between 12 and 15 years old. , lived there. Children with emotional and behavioral disorders attended the school. Mr. and Mrs. Grain were kept there as director and housekeeper. The director's duties, since he was the authority in the boarding house, allowed him to commit indecent acts on the teenagers for his own pleasure, causing psychological suffering to those involved. The accused claim to have admitted that they knew that sexual abuse was a reality at the residential school. boarding school environment, and also that the principal sexually abused the plaintiffs, although without their knowledge, under the guise of mutual masturbation, oral sex and sodomy. This was gradually administered after ingratiating himself with the students of the time by being lenient with them. The case was opened in the early 1990s, not during the reign of the director and his wife who remained there until 1982. And in 1997, the lawsuits against the defendants for damages were filed. The claims were twofold: firstly, the ...... middle of paper ......n in the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd was correct. Had this decision been upheld in Trotman v North Yorkshire County Council, it could easily have been seen as encouraging the commission of sexual abuse. The employer assumed care of the boys through the principal, and there was therefore a connection between the principal's actions and his employment. The defendants were responsible for taking care of the innocent students and, having taken the help of the principal, they should have taken precautions to prevent such lewd behavior because they knew that such behavior was not improbable in such institutions. In short, I agree with Atiyah who, in his work on vicarious liability in the law of torts, wrote: "The captain must be responsible for all torts which can properly be considered as risks reasonably incidental to the type of business he carries on.".