vicarious liability cases Flashcards
Limpus v London general omnibus co
And bus company was liable for the actions of their employee bus driver when he raced other buses even though he was expressly prohibited from doing so. He was employed to drive buses it was just the way in which he did it that was unauthorised.
Century insurance co
The employee was employed by D as a petrol tank driver. While he was unloading his tanker he threw away a lighted match which caused a fire. D was vicariously liable for the employees negligence as he was doing his job at the time of the incident, even though it was an improper mode of doing so.
Rose v plenty
D had prohibited their employees from carrying boys on their milk floats. The 13 year old claimant was injured while being carried on the milk float due to negligence of the employee.
Ds vicariously liable as the prohibition had not affected the course of his employment, simply the method which he could do his job.
Warren v henleys ltd
The employee was employed as a pump attendant at a garage by D he accused a customer of driving away without paying. The customer threatened to report him to his boss so the employee gave him “one on the nose to get on with”. This was seen as an act of personal violence so not within the course of his employment.
Poland v john parr and sons
An employee of Ds struck and caused serious injury to a boy whom he honestly believed was stealing sugar from his employers Wagon. The employee was acting in the course of the employment therefore D was vicariously liable.
Lister v hesley hall ltd
The warden of a boarding school sexually abused the claimants who were children. What the warden did could not be described as an unauthorised methodof doing something authorised by the employer as it was the opposite. But they were vicariously liable as they gave him the opportunity.
Mattis v pollock
P was a nightclub owner when one of his bouncers attacked More with a knife. The stabbing happened outside the club just after a violent incident happened inside. The bouncer had been employed to keep order and P had encouraged him and expected him to be aggressive. Please was vicariously liable.
