Employment Law Case Law Flashcards
Kirby v NCB (1958)
Scope of Employment (established 4 guidelines)
Case: Miners who took a break from work and went to smoke in an unauthorised area. There was an explosion and Kirby was injured.
HELD: The National Coal Board (NCB) were NOT held vicariously liable in this case as smoking in its mines was expressly forbidden by statute.
However, this case gives us four guidelines from Lord President Clyde to consider vicarious liability
Williams v A. & W. Hemphill Ltd. (1966)
This is an example of Lord President’s ruling in Kirby v NCB:
Even when the employee does authorised work in an unauthorised way, the employer remains liable
Case: A driver had been hired to pick up some BB boys and their equipment from their summer camp. The driver’s employer instructed him to take the boys from Benderloch back to Glasgow via the usual route.
The Boys persuaded the driver to take a different route (they wanted to go via Stirling to meet up with some Guides who had been camping nearby).
The lorry was involved in an accident and some boys were injured.
The action was brought by the father of an injured boy who had not been involved in asking the driver to deviate from the usual route.
The driver’s employers argued that the deviation had taken the driver outwith the scope of his employment.
HELD: The court decided that the driver’s job was to take the boys to Glasgow, and although he did it in an unauthorized way, the deviation was not for his own purposes.
Williams v A. & W. Hemphill Ltd. (1966)
Summary of the Case
Case: An employer hired a minibus driver to pick up some BB boys from summer camp and bring them back to Glasgow via a specific route and the driver deviated from this route resulting in an accident.
HELD: It was ruled that the driver was working within the scope of employment because although he carried out the job in an unauthorised way the deviation was not for his own purposes making the employer liable.
There was vicarious liability.
Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board (1942)
Another example of unauthorised work
Case: An employee was delivering petrol. Although he was told not to, he had a cigarette. He lit it with a match and threw the match away causing a fire in the garage. His employers argued that smoking was not in the course of his employment and it was a totally unauthorised act.
HELD: The court held, however, that he was still doing his job and his employers were vicariously liable.
Rose v Plenty (1976)
Scope of Employment guidelines
This case uses the 3rd guideline where the outcome is dependent upon whether or not the employee is acting in the employers interests
Case: Children specifically prohibited from travelling on milk float. One milkman has a young boy helping him with his milkround and so allows him to travel on the milkfloat (in contradiction to employers instructions). There is an accident and boy is injured.
HELD: Employer is found to be vicariously liable because the employee is acting in the employers interests
Poland v John Parr & Sons 1927
Scope of Employment guidelines
3rd Guideline. Employee acting in employers interest
Case: A man thought a boy was stealing from the back of his employer’s van. He thumped the boy who fell under a wheel and was injured.
Obviously it was not part of the driver’s job to assault boys.
HELD: However, it was held that he acted in his employer’s interests and it was therefore in the scope of his employment. (He attempted to stop a theft)
Conway v George Wimpey (1951)
Scope of employment guidelines
4th Rule President Clyde: if an employee uses an employer’s equipment for their own good the employer is not liable.
Case: A driver employed by Wimpey was under strict orders only to give lifts to individuals employed by Wimpey.
There was a notice to this effect in the cab of the lorry. Conway, who was not an employee of Wimpey, got a lift on the lorry and was injured through the driver’s negligence.
There was no benefit to Wimpey, the driver acted outwith the scope of his employment
HELD: The courts deemed that the plaintiff (this is an English case), Conway, was a trespasser on the vehicle and both he and the lorry driver were held equally responsible. The employer was not deemed to be vicariously liable.
Driver was using employer equipment for his own use
TSB Bank plc v Harris (2000)
Common law duties of an EMPLOYER
To show employees trust & respect
Case: Harris was employed by the TSB and wanted to leave. She applied for a new job and the prospective employer was informed by the TSB that she had been the subject of several customer complaints and she did not get the job.
Crucially, the TSB had not informed Harris about the complaints and therefore robbed her of the opportunity to defend herself.
HELD: Harris took the bank to an employment tribunal that found in her favour. The bank had failed to show Harris proper trust and confidence.
Woods v WM Car Services (1982)
Common law duties of an EMPLOYER
To show employees trust & respect
Case: Mrs Woods had been employed by Todds garage in Peterborough since 1952. In 1980 the garage was sold to WM Car Services. The new company made an offer to Mrs Woods which she accepted to ‘employ you on terms no less favourable from those on which you were employed before’.
Mrs Woods’ job title before the takeover was Chief secretary and accounts clerk and she had acted as personal assistant to her boss and had another employee working beneath her.
The new garage owners introduced new accounting procedures and the person who had been Mrs Woods’ subordinate became redundant. Mrs Woods’ new job specification meant the Mrs Woods would be doing accounting tasks for 80% of her working day.
Mrs Woods refused to accept these changes.
HELD: Courts ruled that it was not disrespectful of the company to affect an employee’s role by introducing improved business methods.
Woods v WM Car Services (1982)
Common law duties of an EMPLOYER
To show employees trust & respect
Case Summary
Case: Mrs woods was employed by a garage for several years. The garage was then sold on to another employer and the new company made an offer to Mrs Woods which she accepted. The company agreed to employ her no less terms than she previously was employed (she was a chief secretary and personal assistant).
HELD: Courts ruled that it was not disrespectful of the company to affect an employee’s role by introducing improved business methods.
Hudson V Ridge Manufacturing Co (1957)
Health & Safety
Competent fellow employees
Case: Hudson fractured his wrist when he was tripped up by a fellow employee. The man who tripped him up had been playing practical jokes on his workmates for four years and his employers were aware of this.
HELD: The employers were held liable for Hudson’s injury. It was reasonably foreseeable if the prankster was not ordered to stop his ‘jokes’ that sooner or later somebody would get hurt.
Smith v Crosslet Bros (1951)
Health & Safety
Competent fellow employees
This case can be distinguished from Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co.
Case: An apprentice, Smith, was injured when his fellow apprentices conducted a cruel initiation ritual.
HELD: The employer was not held to be personally liable to Smith as this type of prank had never taken place before. Nor was the employer vicariously liable as ‘playing jokes’ was outwith the apprentices’ scope of employment.
Paris v. Stepney Borough Council (1951)
Health & Safety
Adequate equipment & materials
Case: It involved a WWII veteran who had lost sight in one eye. He was not supplied with protective goggles and an incident at work caused him to lose sight in his good eye.
Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)
Health & Safety
Adequate equipment & materials
Case: An employer, in severe weather conditions, sent Bradford on a round trip of 400 miles in a van with a defective heater.
HELD: His employer was held liable for the frostbite he suffered.
Walker v Northumberland County Council (1995)
Health & Safety
Safe working systems
Case: Walker, a stressed social worker had a nervous breakdown and was dismissed by the Council.
HELD: Walker successfully sued on the grounds that the Council knew he was vulnerable and had not taken proper steps to protect him.
