A number of contractors were employed in work at the Heathrow Airport. The defendant company had instituted a bus service for their own employees and the driver was prohibited by the defendant company from giving lifts to anyone other than their own employees.
Held: The claim failed. The act of the driver in giving a lift to the plaintiff was outside the scope of his employment. It was not merely a wrongful mode of performing an act of the class which the driver was employed to perform, but was the performance of an act which he was not employed to perform.
Asquith LJ said: ‘I should hold that taking men not employed by the defendants on to the vehicle was not merely a wrongful mode of performing the act of the class this driver was employed to perform, but was the performance of an act of a class ‘which he was not employed to perform at all.’
Judges:
Asquith LJ
Citations:
[1951] 2 KB 266
Jurisdiction:
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.
Torts – Other, Vicarious Liability
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.278318