Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd: HL 1957

An employer may be civilly responsible for his employee’s breach even though it constitutes a crime, and a skilled employee in general owed a contractual duty of reasonable care to his employer in the performance of his employment. In determining the rights inter se of A and B, the fact that one them is insured is to be disregarded. A term will not be implied into a contract at common law unless it satisfies the requirement of certainty, under ‘the general principle that an implication must be precise and obvious’.
Viscount Simonds said: ‘as a general proposition it has not, I think, been questioned for nearly 200 years that in determining the rights inter se of A and B the fact that one or other of them is insured is to be disregarded’.

Judges:

Viscount Simonds, Lord Tucker

Citations:

[1957] 1 All ER 125, [1956] UKHL 6, [1957] AC 555

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromLister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd CA 1956
Where an employer is found vicariously liable for an employee’s actions, they are entitled to recover an indemnity from them, to cover such losses.
Held: An accident which occurred in the yard of a slaughterhouse did not arise out of use on . .

Cited by:

CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
CitedWestminster (Duke of) and others v Guild CA 30-Mar-1983
The landlord brought an action for non-payment of rent. The tenant sought to set off a failure by the landlord to repair the building of which his flat was part and which failure had caused him loss. The landlord said that it had no express duty to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Contract

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190003