Iqbal v London Transport Executive (1973)

Case name & citation: Iqbal v London Transport Executive [1973] EWCA Civ 3; (1973) 16 KIR 329

Court and jurisdiction: The Court of Appeal, England and Wales

Decided on: 06 Jun 1973

Area of law: Vicarious liability; prohibitions by the employer on employee’s work

Facts of the case (Iqbal v London Transport Executive)

The case concerns a bus conductor. It was expressly specified by his employer that he was prohibited from driving a bus in any capacity. But he ignored the instructions given to him by his employer and instead drove a bus for a short distance in a garage. In doing so, he struck and injured a co-worker. The injured party sued the employer for injuries caused due to the negligence of the bus conductor.

Issue

Could the employer be held responsible for the injury caused due to the negligent act of his employee (the conductor)?

Judgment of the Court in Iqbal v London Transport Executive

The Court decided that an employer’s explicit instructions can be an effective aid in outlining the scope of employment for an employee.

It was expressly stated that the conductor was not permitted to drive the buses. Therefore, his act of driving the bus was deemed by the Court of Appeal to be outside of the course of his employment. He was engaged as a bus conductor, and driving a bus was in no manner a part of his duties, so this action was found to be outside of the course of his employment.

Thus, the employer was not held liable.

Vicarious liability

The above case is on vicarious liability.

Under the legal principle known as vicarious liability, one person can be held responsible for the actions of another individual even though that individual was not directly responsible for those actions. In the workplace, this indicates that an employer may be held liable for the wrongful activities of an employee, provided that the wrongdoing was carried out in the course of employment.

Further, in deciding whether an act falls within the course of employment or not, the Courts usually consider the facts and circumstances of each case carefully.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from tort law:

Rose v Plenty [1976]: A Case Summary

Case name & citation: Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 W.L.R. 141

Court and jurisdiction: Court of Appeal, England and Wales

Decided on: 07 July 1975

The bench judges: Lord Denning, Scarman LJ and Lawton LJ

Area of law: Vicarious liability; Employee acting against orders

What is the case about?

Rose v Plenty [1976] is a famous case on the vicarious liability of employers.

Facts of the case

A milkman was instructed by his employer not to allow passengers on his float. He was also prohibited from employing children to assist him in delivering the milk. The milkman ignored the order and engaged the claimant, a 13-year-old boy, to assist him. The boy was injured due to the milkman’s negligent driving.

Issue

Was the employer responsible for the negligence of the milkman?

Judgment of the Court in Rose v Plenty

Held: The employer was liable.

The employer was found to be vicariously liable by the court because the prohibition did not affect the job or duties that the milkman was required to do but rather the manner in which he should perform it. He was doing his job albeit in a manner his employer disapproved of.

In other words, when the milkman hired the boy to help him deliver milk, he was acting in the course of his employment because the milkman’s job/duty was to deliver milk, and hiring the boy helped him do his job.

A contrary view

The Courts took a conflicting view in Twine v Bean’s Express Ltd (1946).

Here, a van driver was instructed not to give lifts to unauthorized persons and a notice to this effect was put up on the dashboard of the van. Despite this, he gave a lift to an unauthorized person. As a result of the driver’s negligence, the passenger died.

It was held that because the employee was not acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident, the employer was not held liable for the incident.

The driver was performing an unauthorized act, so he was acting outside the scope of his employment.

Comparing Rose v Plenty and Twine v Bean’s Express

In Rose v Plenty, the Court found that the employee was performing his job, but he was doing it in a way that the employer had specifically instructed him not to. In spite of this, he was working within the scope of his employment because the work that he was doing was for the benefit of the employer’s business.

On the contrary, in the case of Twine v Bean’s Express, the express prohibition on offering lifts was not simply a prohibition, but it was also a limiting factor on the scope of employment. The driver was acting outside the scope of his employment. Moreover, giving lifts to unauthorized persons was not viewed to be in the interest of the employer.

Thus, even though the employer forbids a certain activity, he can still be held liable for it if the activity was carried out with the intention of benefiting the employer. This does not seem to be appropriate. However, if the employer does not benefit from the act, then it is possible that the employer will not be liable. This is what happened in the case of Twine v Bean’s Express. This demonstrates that there is a very fine line between what constitutes vicarious liability and what does not, which can sometimes lead to uncertainty. The Courts carefully analyze the facts and circumstances of each case before giving their decision.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from tort law:

Twine v Bean’s Express Ltd (1946): A Case Summary

Case name & citation: Twine v Bean’s Express Ltd (1946) 62 T.L.R. 155; [1946] 1 All E.R. 202; (1946) 175 L.T. 131

Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Year of the case: 1946

Area of law: Vicarious liability; Employee acting against orders

What is the case about?

This case deals with the question of whether an employer can be vicariously held liable for the negligent acts of his employee carried out against the employer’s instructions.

Case facts (Twine v Bean’s Express Ltd)

A van driver was instructed not to give lifts to unauthorized persons and a notice to this effect was put up on the dashboard of the van. Despite this, he gave a lift to an unauthorized person. As a result of the driver’s negligence, the passenger died.

Issue

Could the employer be held liable for the driver’s negligence?

Judgment of the Court in Twine v Bean’s Express Ltd

It was held that because the employee was not acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident, the employer was not held liable for the incident.

The driver was performing an unauthorized act, so he was acting outside the scope of his employment.

Evidently, the driver was not authorized to transport passengers (as mentioned in the notice). The transportation of such passengers was not in his employer’s best interest. It was not something that his employer had approved. It was not allowed to be done. Therefore, one cannot say that transporting such passengers was an act that was authorized by the employer or that was in the interest of the employer. The actions of the driver were not those of someone acting in the employer’s best interest but rather in the driver’s own best interest. The driver surpassed the boundaries of his job responsibilities.

A conflicting view

As regards prohibitions by employers and whether or not they can prevent an employer from being liable, the courts have taken conflicting views in some cases.

For example, consider the case of Rose v Plenty [1976]. Here, a milkman was instructed by his employer not to allow passengers on his float. He was also prohibited from employing children to assist him in delivering the milk. The milkman ignored the order and engaged the claimant, a 13-year-old boy, to assist him. The boy was injured due to the milkman’s negligent driving.

That is, the milkman was acting within the course of his employment.

The difference between the cases Twine v Bean’s Express and Rose v Plenty is that in the former case, the court determined that the driver offered a lift, not for the purpose of doing something that would benefit the employer. Whereas in Rose v Plenty, the young boy was assisting in deliveries, thereby contributing to the business of the milkman’s employer.

Another case may also be seen.

In Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862), a bus driver was given written orders not to race or obstruct other buses. The driver disobeyed the order and while he was racing with another bus, a collision occurred. Despite disobeying the order, the court determined that the driver was acting in the course of his employment. It was believed that the driver was, though in an improper manner, promoting his employer’s passenger service business by seeking to disturb another bus.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from tort law:

Limpus v London General Omnibus (1862): A Quick Summary

Case name & citation: Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862) 1 H. & C. 526; (1862) 158 E.R. 993

Court and jurisdiction: Exchequer, England and Wales

Decided on: 23 June 1862

Area of law: Vicarious liability; Employee acting against orders

What is the case about?

The case of Limpus v London General Omnibus Co deals with the vicarious liability of an employer for the torts of his/her employees. In the given case, the Court had to decide whether the tort was committed within the course of employment in order for the employer to be held liable.

Facts of the case (Limpus v London General Omnibus)

A bus driver was given explicit written instructions not to race with or obstruct other buses. The driver disobeyed the order and while he was racing with another bus, a collision occurred.

An action was brought against the bus company for the reckless and improper conduct of its driver.

The bus company attempted to avoid liability by arguing that it had strictly prohibited its drivers from obstructing the movement of other buses.

Issue

Could the bus company be held liable?

Judgment of the Court in Limpus v London General Omnibus

Employers can be held vicariously liable for the negligent or wrongful acts of their employees when those acts occur in the course of their employment.

Therefore, despite the fact that the driver had disobeyed the order, the Court decided that he was acting within the scope of his employment. The employers were held liable because, at the time of the accident, the driver was nonetheless doing what he was employed to do, i.e., he was acting within the scope of his employment. It was immaterial whether his act was prohibited.

It was believed that the driver was, though in an improper manner, promoting his employer’s passenger service business by seeking to disturb another bus.

Summing up the case

If an employee is performing his or her job but acts contrary to the instructions given, the employer may still be liable.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from tort law:

Beard v London General Omnibus [1900]: A Quick Summary

Case name & citation: Beard v London General Omnibus Co [1900] 2 QB 530

Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Year of the case: 1900

Area of law: Vicarious liability

What is the case about?

This case deals with the vicarious liability of an employer for his employee’s negligence when it is caused outside the scope of employment.

Case facts (Beard v London General Omnibus)

The conductor of a bus took it upon himself to turn the bus around at the terminus, in the absence of the driver. In doing so, he negligently injured the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued for damages against the employers of the bus conductor.

Issue raised

Was the bus company liable for the injury sustained by the plaintiff due to the employee’s negligence?

The decision of the Court in Beard v London General Omnibus

The employers were found not to be liable for the conductor’s actions because his job was not to drive the bus but rather to collect fares, and the act in question fell completely outside the scope of his employment.

The task of driving was performed without authorization and it went beyond the ambit of the employer’s vicarious liability. Because it was not a part of the conductor’s duty to drive the omnibus. He was doing something outside the scope of what he was employed to do. And hence, it couldn’t be said negligence in the course of his employment.

Who bears the burden of proof in general?

A master will not be held vicariously liable for a tort committed by one of his servants unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the tort was committed while the servant was performing duties related to his employment. That is, it was committed during the course of his employment.

Hence, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

If the given case is seen, here the plaintiff failed to show that the conductor was acting in the course of his employment. He was not authorized to drive the bus.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from tort law:

A Summary of Smith v Stages [1989] Case

Case name & citation: Smith v Stages [1989] AC 928; [1989] 2 WLR 529

Court and jurisdiction: House of Lords, UK

Year of the case: 1989

The learned judge: Lord Lowry

Area of law: Vicarious liability for work travel

What is the case about?

The case of Smith v Stages [1989] talks about the vicarious liability of employers with regard to employees travelling to and from work, especially to a different location.

Case facts (Smith v Stages)

Machin and Stages, two employees, were given the opportunity to work at a location different from their usual place of employment and were paid for their time travelling there and back in addition to receiving a travel allowance. Both were injured when a car accident occurred on their way back due to the negligent driving of Stages.

Issue

Could the employer be held vicariously liable for the negligence of Stages?

Judgment of the Court in Smith v Stages

The House of Lords acknowledged that it was unlikely for a person to be acting in the course of their employment if they were travelling to or from their regular place of employment (whatever the means of transport and even if provided by the employer); however, they distinguished the facts of this case from the general rule.

Here, the employees had been paid for the time they had spent travelling to and from the site. It was part of their work and they were paid for the travel time and the whole trip just as they would have been paid on a normal working day.

Hence, their Lordships found that the employer was vicariously liable for the accident.

Even as they were travelling back, they were still going about the employer’s business.

Lord Lowry advised that in the absence of an express condition to the contrary, travel would be considered to be part of the employee’s employment if the employee is obliged to use the employer’s transport by his contract of service, or is travelling on the employer’s time between workplaces or to a workplace that is not his regular workplace, or is travelling in the course of a peripatetic occupation. Any detour or interruption of the journey for any reason other than something incidental to his master’s business, though, would take him outside of the scope of his employment.

Receipt of wages (as in this case) indicates that the employee is travelling on the employer’s time, for the employer’s benefit, and in the course of his employment.

Note:

In general, an employer is vicariously held liable for the torts of his employees that are carried out in the course of employment.For this, the basic principle is that employees are acting in the course of their employment when they are performing what they have been employed to do or anything that is reasonably incidental to their jobs.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from tort law:

Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co Ltd [1957]: Case Summary

Case name & citation: Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co Ltd [1957] AC 555; [1957] 1 All ER 125

Court and jurisdiction: House of Lords, England and Wales

The bench of judges: Viscount Simonds, Lord Morton of Henryton, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker and Lord Somervell of Harrow

Area of law: Vicarious liability

What is the case about?

This case of 1957 talks about the employee-employer relationship. Here, the House of Lords held that even though an employer is vicariously liable for the acts of his employee, the employee also bears a duty of care towards the performance of his duties under the employment.

Case facts (Lister v Romford Ice)

In this particular case, which was heard and decided in the year 1957, the appellant worked for the respondent employer as a lorry driver. During the course of his work, the employee was reversing the lorry when he inadvertently ran over and injured his father, who was assisting him. The father filed a claim for damages against the employer on the grounds that the employer was vicariously liable for the negligent driving of the employee.

The father’s claim was successful, and the employer (& its insurers) then sought contribution or, as an alternative, an indemnity from the son for breach of an implied term in the contract of employment that stated the son would exercise reasonable care while driving the lorry.

Issue

Was the employee liable to indemnify the employer for damages that the employer had to pay?

The contention by the appellant

The son claimed there was an implied term of his contract of service that he would receive indemnification from the employer (respondent) against all claims & proceedings brought against him for any act done in the course of his employment or that alternatively, he would be entitled to the benefits of any insurance contracts effected by the respondent.

Judgment of the Court in Lister v Romford Ice

The trial judge who presided over the initial hearing awarded the employer a 100 percent contribution, and the Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s decision.

The employee’s appeal to the House of Lords was rejected on the grounds that an employer who is vicariously liable for the negligent act or omission of an employee is entitled to an indemnity from the employee for breach of contractual duty of care. This was the reasoning behind the rejection of the employee’s appeal.

The majority of their lordships held that it was an implied term of a contract of employment that an employee would perform his or her duties with proper care. It also held that the employee’s failure, in this case, to perform his or her duties with proper care founded an action for damages for breach of contract.

Furthermore, it was also decided, by a majority of three to two, that the employer was not liable to protect the driver by insurance against any third-party liability that arose in the course of the driver’s duties. This was because it was held that no such implied term could be read into his contract of service.

Due to the above points, the House of Lords decided that the appellant had breached his obligation to his employer and that the respondent (employer) was entitled to recovery of damages equal to the amount for which they had been obligated to the father.

Note:

The decision has been widely criticized by a number of people. It was then believed that the consequences of this decision are likely to have far-reaching effects and that they hold the possibility of causing a significant hardship for employees.

References used:

You might also like:

More from tort law:

A Quick Summary of Hilton v Thomas Burton (1961)

Case name & citation: Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 705; [1961] 1 All ER 74

Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Year of the case: 1961

The learned judge: Diplock J

Area of law: Vicarious liability

What is the case about?

Hilton v Thomas Burton (1961) is a tort law case that concerns vicarious liability.

Case facts (Hilton v Thomas Burton)

A group of demolition contractors decided to take an unauthorized tea break and took the employer’s van (they had permission to do so) to a café located eight miles away from their place of work. On the way back, their employer’s van crashed and one of the workers was killed due to the negligence of the driver. His widow filed a lawsuit against the employer.

Issue

Could the employer be held responsible for the actions of the employee who was negligently driving the van?

Judgment of the Court in Hilton v Thomas Burton

The employer was not held vicariously liable for the torts of the employee.

The court determined that the employer could not be held liable because the connection between the incident and the job that the workmen were employed to do was too vague.

The employee was on a “frolic of his own”.

The reasoning behind the decision

When someone is held responsible for the actions of another individual, this is known as vicarious liability. For example, employers may be held liable when employees act negligently. The idea is that it is the responsibility of the company, the manufacturer, or the public body to ensure that their employees have the necessary tools, training, and preparedness to fulfill their roles, not the employees themselves.

In general, employers may be held liable for only those wrongful actions that are carried out in the course of employment.

It is often said that an employee was off on a “frolic of his own” when he or she was engaged in activities unrelated to their employment. This situation may often come up when an employee, while at work or during a break in the day, decides to go off on their own and engage in an activity that is not directly related to the work that they do as part of their regular employment. In such cases, the employer won’t be liable.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from tort law:

A Quick Summary of Storey v Ashton (1869)

Case name & citation: Storey v Ashton (1869) LR 4 QB 476

Court and jurisdiction: Queen’s Bench Division, England and Wales

Year of the case: 1869

Area of law: Vicarious liability

What is the case about?

Storey v Ashton (1869) is a tort law case on vicarious liability.

Case facts (Storey v Ashton)

The defendant deployed two employees (a clerk and a driver) in a horse and cart to deliver some wine. The driver delivered goods as instructed and rather than returning directly to his employer’s premises, he decided to first drive in another direction to visit the home of his colleague’s relative on personal business (the clerk’s relative). Because of the negligence of the employee who was driving the horse and cart, the claimant (a pedestrian) was run over and injured during the course of that diversion. An action was brought against the employer by the claimant.

Issue

Could the employer be held liable for the incident?

Judgment of the Court in Storey v Ashton

It was determined that the driver was acting outside the course of his employment.

Therefore, the employer was not liable for the negligence of his employee.

The reasoning behind the decision

A person is said to have vicarious liability if they can be held liable for the wrongdoings of another person even though they themselves are not to blame. The relationship between an employer and an employee is probably the most typical example of this.

Generally, an employer is held liable for the tortious acts of his employees if they are carried out in the course of employment.

It then follows that if an employee, during the course of work, engages in a diversion, such as going on “a frolic of his own”, to use a phrase that is popular among judges, engaging in an unauthorized act that is not incidental to the authorized employment duties, he will be considered to have stepped out of the course of employment. That is to say, there won’t be any vicarious liability if the employee engages in conduct that is clearly unrelated to the roles of his employment.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from tort law:

A Quick Summary of Barry v Davies [2000] Case

Case name & citation: Barry v Davies (t/a Heathcote Ball & Co) [2000] 1 WLR 1962 (CA)

Court and jurisdiction: Court of Appeal, England & Wales

Decided on: 27 July 2000

The learned judge: Sir Murray Stuart Smith LJ

Area of law: Auctions (and individual items) advertised without reserve

What is the case about?

Barry v Davies is an English contract law case that throws light on the obligation of an auctioneer to sell the goods to the highest bidder (regardless of the bid amount) in an auction without reserve.

Case facts (Barry v Davies)

The plaintiff had placed the only bid for two engine analysers at an auction without reserve, of £200 each. The auctioneer decided not to sell the engine analysers after receiving this bid because it was deemed too low (on the basis that each machine was worth approximately $14,000). As a result, the engine analysers were removed from the auction. A couple of days later, they were sold in a private transaction for the price of £750 each.

Since he was the highest bidder at an auction without reserve, the plaintiff filed a claim for damages, alleging that the auctioneer had breached a contract. The plaintiff sought damages in the amount of £27,600, which was calculated as the difference between the value of both machines, which was £28,000, and the total amount of his bid, which was £400.

Issue

The issue was whether holding an auction without a reserve price constituted a legally binding offer to sell the goods to the highest bidder.

Judgment of the Court in Barry v Davies

The auctioneer was held liable. The highest bid could not be turned down solely on the grounds that it was not high enough.

Sir Murray Stuart Smith LJ conformed his viewpoint to that held by the majority of the Court of Exchequer Chamber in the case of Warlow v Harrison (1859) 1 E & E 309.

The judge decided that people who attend an auction sale without reserve would generally and reasonably expect that the person who places the highest bid would and should be entitled to the lot for which he or she bids. According to his point of view, such an outcome was fair and logical. As a matter of law, he came to the conclusion that there was a collateral contract between the auctioneer and the person who placed the highest bid, on the auctioneer’s undertaking to sell to the highest bidder. This contract was created when the auctioneer made an offer to sell to the highest bidder, and that offer was accepted when the bid was placed.

As a result of the auctioneer’s decision to withdraw the machines from the auction, this contract was breached, and he was obligated to pay the highest bidder the difference between the amount of the bid and the market price that the goods were selling for on the day of the auction. The only evidence of market price was the manufacturer’s list price for new machines, which was £14,000 for each machine.

Takeaway from the case

The following points may be drawn from this case:

The request for bids that is made by an auctioneer is an invitation to treat. A bid represents an offer, and when the auctioneer brings the hammer down, it indicates that he has accepted the offer. In the case of auctions without a reserve price, the auctioneer will enter into a collateral or separate contract. The nature of the collateral contract is that the auctioneer will accept the highest bid.

Section 57 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 talks about auction sales.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from contract law: