Week 4 Flashcards
Ferguson v Dawson [1976]
Facts:
Contract stated on the building site would be self employed and that they are sub contracts.
Held:
When the Court had to make a decision, they held the substance of the contract which showed that in reality C was an employee, regardless of the wording of the contract.
Market Investigations v Minister of Social Security [1969]
Facts:
Part-time interviewers with short-term contracts were held to be employees.
Employer had extensive control.
Employees had limited discretion and had timetables set.
Held:
Although the part-time interviewers had the ability to work for others at the same time, the court found that they should be treated as employees as the employer had extensive control over them.
Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board [1942]
Facts:
Lorry driver that threw a match out of the window and caught fire.
Destroyed an oil tanker in the process and destroyed a lot of property too.
Held:
Court found that the employer was liable as there was a close connection because the act happened whilst the employee was performing his job.
Rose v Plenty [1976]
Facts:
Milkman was warned by employer to not allow children to assist him or ride in the milk float.
Milkman did anyways and injured a 13 year old boy through negligent driving.
Held:
COA held that if the act was to continue and assist the employer, then it was still in the course of employment and therefore the employer was liable for the injury of the 13 year old boy.
Poland v John Parr and Sons [1927]
Facts:
Employers were liable w hen employee chased down a boy they believed had stolen a bag of sugar.
Employee implied authority to protect the employer’s goods and the violence was not excessive.
Held:
Court decided the employer was liable because a reasonable person would expect their employee to protect the employer’s goods.
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002]
Facts:
D was a warden at a residential home.
D was employed by the home owner.
C was sexually abused by D and C decided to sue the home owner as it was their employee.
Held:
Similar case happened (T v North Yorkshire CC) where it was mentioned that the home owner could be held liable for D’s actions only if they failed to report risk of harm to the children.
Previous case was overruled and it has been decided that the sexual assault was closely linked to the employee’s course of employment and the home owner was held liable.
