Employment law Flashcards
Century Insurance Co v Northern Ireland Transport Board 1942
Driver of a petrol tanker negligently discarded a lighted match that he had used to light a cigarette. This act was carried out while he was standing in a petrol station just as the petrol from the tanker was being unloaded. The match landed on flammable material and this caused a fire to start which spread to the tanker. The driver’s employers attempted to make their losses by claiming their insurance policy, but the insurers argued that the driver was not actually working at the time when the negligence caused the accident. It was not within the scope of his employment.
HELD: House of Lords that the driver was within the scope of his employment and the employers were vicariously liable for his actions. The driver was expected to supervise the unloading of his vehicle and this meant that he was still acting within his employment. The insurers had to pay out to the driver’s employers
Rose v Plenty (1976)
The employers had a very clear policy whereby children were not allowed to travel on milk floats. On of the milkmen, in clear defiance of this policy, allowed a young boy to travel on his milk float in order to help him with his rounds. Due to the milkman’s negligent driving, the boy was injured
HELD: the employers were benefiting from the assistance that the victim had provided the milk man. There was no question that the milkman was doing anything other than acting within his employment
Conway v George Wimpey 1951
A driver, against the express orders of his employer, gave a lift to an individual who wasn’t a fellow employee. An accident occurred and the passenger was injured as a result of this. The passenger sued the employer for damages.
HELD: the employer was not vicariously liable to the victim because the driver could not be said to be promoting his employer’s interests by giving this individual a lift. The employer was not benefiting from the driver’s decision to give a lift to the third party.
