1. In the case of Century Insurance Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board the vicarious liability applied, where the lighting of a match to light a cigarette and throwing it on the floor while transferring petrol from a lorry to a tank was held to be in the scope of employment. It is observed that, where an employee is acting in a manner which is expressly prohibited by the employer, but acting in his everyday tasks and duties then the employer is vicariously liable. 2. In the case of Limpus v London General Omnibus Co. , the courts heard that a bus driver of London Omnibus General Co. was racing a bus and caused an accident. His employers were held liable because at the time of the accident, he was doing what he was employed to do,
…show more content…
In Cassidy v Ministry of Health case , the Ministry was liable for the negligence of doctors who were employed by it on contracts of service. In the judgment Denning LJ said that: ‘whenever they accept a patient for treatment, they must use reasonable care and skill to cure him of his ailment. The hospital authorities cannot, of course, do it by themselves: they have no ears to listen through the stethoscope, and no hands to hold the surgeon’s knife. They must do it by the staff which they employ; and if their staff are negligent in giving the treatment, they are just as liable for that negligence as is anyone else who employs others to do his duties for …show more content…
The rule was established in case of Plumb v Cobden Flour Mills Co Ltd. in which Lord Dunedin distinguished between prohibitions which 'limit the sphere of employment', and those which 'only deal with conduct within the sphere of employment'. He then stated that only a transgression of the former class carries an employee outside the scope of his employment. An example of this being applied was in the case of LCC v Cattermoles Ltd . A garage worker was employed to move vehicles in a garage, but was prohibited from driving them. When he drove a van out of the garage onto the highway and collided with another vehicle, it was held to be acting within the course of his employment by making room for other vans inside the
In Cassidy v Ministry of Health case , the Ministry was liable for the negligence of doctors who were employed by it on contracts of service. In the judgment Denning LJ said that: ‘whenever they accept a patient for treatment, they must use reasonable care and skill to cure him of his ailment. The hospital authorities cannot, of course, do it by themselves: they have no ears to listen through the stethoscope, and no hands to hold the surgeon’s knife. They must do it by the staff which they employ; and if their staff are negligent in giving the treatment, they are just as liable for that negligence as is anyone else who employs others to do his duties for …show more content…
The rule was established in case of Plumb v Cobden Flour Mills Co Ltd. in which Lord Dunedin distinguished between prohibitions which 'limit the sphere of employment', and those which 'only deal with conduct within the sphere of employment'. He then stated that only a transgression of the former class carries an employee outside the scope of his employment. An example of this being applied was in the case of LCC v Cattermoles Ltd . A garage worker was employed to move vehicles in a garage, but was prohibited from driving them. When he drove a van out of the garage onto the highway and collided with another vehicle, it was held to be acting within the course of his employment by making room for other vans inside the