Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd
An employer was not vicariously liable for an employee who was driving on a frolic of his own, unconnected with his work.
Facts
Four employees of a demolition company were working on a site some distance from their base. With the employer's permission, they used the company's van to drive to a café for tea, some miles away. They changed their minds and turned back before reaching the café, and on the way back the van crashed, killing one of them because of the driver's negligence. The dead man's widow sued the employer.
Legal principle
Diplock J held that the employer was not vicariously liable. Although the driver had permission to use the van, the journey was not made for any purpose connected with his work, but on a frolic of his own, to have tea in a café several miles away. The employees were not doing anything that they were employed to do, so the driver was not acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident.
Related cases on employers' liability and vicarious liability
- Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60, [2018] AC 355
- Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, [2020] AC 973
- Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509
- Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10, [2016] AC 660
- Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48, [2003] 2 AC 366
- Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862) 1 H & C 526
- Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215
- Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34, [2007] 1 AC 224
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
