Rose v Plenty
An employer was vicariously liable for an employee who allowed a boy to help him deliver milk, contrary to instructions, because the boy was helping with the employer's business.
Facts
Mr Plenty was a milkman employed by a dairy, which prohibited its milkmen from giving lifts to passengers or allowing children to help them. Contrary to these instructions, he allowed a 13 year old boy, Leslie Rose, to ride on his milk float and help him deliver milk. The boy was injured because of Mr Plenty's negligent driving. He sued the dairy.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held, by a majority, that the dairy was vicariously liable. Lord Denning MR said that the prohibition affected only the mode of doing the work, not the scope of the employment. The milkman was delivering milk, which was what he was employed to do, and the boy was helping him do the employer's business. Scarman LJ said that the prohibited act was done for the employer's purposes. Lawton LJ dissented.
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
- Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 705
- Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862) 1 H & C 526
- Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215
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.
