Against his employer’s instructions, a driver of a lorry deviated substantially from his route. On the detour, an accident occurred owing to the fault of the driver. The question arose whether the employers of the lorry driver were vicariously liable.
Held: Lord Pearson said: ‘Had the driver in the present case been driving a lorry which was empty or contained nothing of real importance, I think that so substantial a deviation might well have constituted a frolic of his own. The presence of passengers, however, whom the servant is charged qua servant to drive to their ultimate destination makes it impossible (at all events, provided that they are not all parties to the plans for deviation) to say that the deviation is entirely for the servant’s purposes. Their presence and transport is a dominant purpose of the authorised journey, and, although they are transported deviously, continues to play an essential part. It was said in argument that there must be some limits to that contention and that one could not hold that, if the driver had gone to Inverness, he would still be acting on his master’s business. No doubt there are such limits to the argument as common sense may set on the facts of each case. But when there are passengers whom the servants on his master’s behalf has taken aboard for transport to Glasgow, their transport and safety does not cease at a certain stage of the journey to be the master’s business, or part of his enterprise, merely because the servant has for his own purposes chosen some route which is contrary to his instructions . . The more dominant are the current obligations of the master’s business in connection with the lorry, the less weight is to be attached to disobedient navigational extravagances of the servant . . In weighing up, therefore, the question of degree, whether the admittedly substantial deviation of the vehicle with its passengers and baggage was such as to make the lorry’s progress a frolic of the servant unconnected with or in substitution for the master’s business, the presence of the passengers is a decisive factor against regarding it as a mere frolic of the servant. In the present case the defenders remained liable, in spite of the deviation, for their driver’s negligence.’
Judges:
Lord Pearson
Citations:
1966 SC(HL) 31, [1966] UKHL 3
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Kirby v National Coal Board OHCS 1958
The court considered the degree of connection necessary between the act of an employee and his employer’s business to establish liability under the rule respondeat superior: ‘four different types of situation have been envisaged as guides to the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Vicarious Liability
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.214664