A Quick Summary of Bugge v Brown (1919) 26 CLR 110
Case name & citation: Bugge v Brown [1919] HCA 5; (1919) 26 CLR 110
- Court: High Court of Australia
- Decided on: 27 March 1919
- The bench of judges: Coram Isaacs, Higgins, and Gavan Duffy, JJ.
- Area of law: Employer and Employee; Negligence of employee; Scope of employment; Vicarious liability
What is the case about?
The case of Bugge v Brown revolved around an issue of whether an employer (the defendant) was liable for damages caused by a fire negligently started by an employee (the servant).
Facts (Bugge v Brown)
The defendant owned a certain grazing land and employed a servant to work on the land. The servant’s remuneration included being supplied with cooked meat. On one occasion, the servant was given raw meat for his midday meal and was instructed to cook it at a specific house on the land. The servant disregarded the instructions and lit a fire at a different location closer to where he was working. The fire escaped due to the servant’s negligence and caused damage to the plaintiff’s land.
Issue that arose
Whether the employer (defendant) is liable for the damage caused by the fire started by the servant, despite the servant disobeying instructions about where to light the fire.
Judgment in Bugge v Brown
The decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria was reversed.
The High Court of Australia, with Isaacs and Higgins JJ. forming the majority and Gavan Duffy J. dissenting, held that the lighting of the fire was within the scope of the servant’s employment. Thus, the employer was responsible for the servant’s negligence even though the servant disobeyed the specific instructions regarding the location of the fire.
It was emphasized that employers cannot avoid liability merely by setting specific instructions if those instructions are not followed exactly. The principle of employer responsibility for the actions of their employees when those actions are within the scope of their employment, was upheld.
Quote
“If an employer is not to be liable for the negligence of his employee unless his instructions are strictly followed, as to time, place and method, then it will be easy for employers to frame forms of authority for their employees, and SO absolve themselves from responsibility as to the consequences to their neighbours of the employees’ negligence.”
(Higgins J. at 130)
List of references:
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM TORT LAW:
