A driver was engaged to drive his employers’ van, his employers having a contract with the Post Office. When so doing, he gave Mr. Twine a lift from A to B, both offices of the Post Office. The driver had been expressly forbidden to give lifts.
Held: The express prohibition upon giving lifts was not only a prohibition but was also a limiting factor on the scope of the employment. The driver was not acting in the course of his employment. Lord Greene said: ‘He (the driver) was employed to drive the van. That does not mean . . that because the deceased man was in the van it was within the scope of the driver’s employment to be driving the deceased man. He was in fact doing two things at once. He was driving his van from one place to another by a route which he was properly taking when he ran into the omnibus, and in driving the van he was acting within the scope of his employment. The other thing which he was doing simultaneously was something totally outside the scope of his employment – namely, giving a lift to a person who had no right whatsoever to be there.’
Lord Greene MR, Uthwatt J
(1946) 62 TLR 155, [1946] 1 KB 202, [1946] 1 All ER 202, (1946) 175 LT 131
England and Wales
Cited by:
Not Followed – Rose v Plenty CA 7-Jul-1975
Contrary to his employers orders, a milkman allowed children to assist him in his milkround. One was injured, and sued the milkman’s employer.
Held: The milkman had not gone so far outside the activities for which he was employed for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Vicarious Liability
Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.278317
