|
Rose v Plenty (1976) Vicarious liability.
Facts
A milkman (against company orders) took a 13-year-old boy to help
him on his round, and the boy was injured through the milkman's
negligent driving. The boy sued both the milkman and the dairy
co-operative. The trial judge found that the co-operative was not
liable. The plaintiff appealed.
The Decision The court held that the
milkman was doing an authorised act, delivering milk, in an
unauthorised way.
Per Lord Scarman: Determining vicarious liability is a matter of
public policy determined by:
1. Did the servant commit a tort on the plaintiff?
2. Whether the employer should shoulder the responsibility.
"if that visitor from Mars is still in court [...] he will return to
his planet conscious that one member of the court sees no
irreconcilable differences opening up in the common law."
Note
The Court of Appeal (by a majority) found the dairy vicariously
liable for the boy's injuries. The boy was actually helping to
deliver the milk, and so the driver's action was an unauthorised way
of performing his duties.
Full text
external link |