A lorry driver employed by a firm of contractors on a site where many other contractors were working, contrary to his express instructions, gave an employee of another firm of contractors a lift in his lorry. The passenger was injured and sought to sue the employer.
Held: He could not.
Lord Denning MR said:’In every case where it is sought to make the master liable for the conduct of his servant, the first question is to see whether the servant was liable. If the answer is Yes, the second question is to see whether the employer must shoulder the servant’s liability’.
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, Denning LJ
Citations:
[1951] 1 TLR 789
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.278320
