There was a fire at the petitioner’s premises. The firemen, employed by the respondent, were in an industrial dispute and drove to the fire slowly. One was said to have commented: ‘we are on a go-slow and even if my mother was in there, it would have to burn down. I want my raise of pay’. The company claimed damages.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed. The respondent was not vicariously liable. The actions of the firemen were not a way of perfuming an authorised act.
Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Sir John Stephenson
[1988] 3 All ER 867, [1988] UKPC 26, [1988] UKPC 2, [1989] IRLR 35, [1989] 1 WLR 69, [1989] ICR 88
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Employment, Vicarious Liability
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.188843
