60
|
P a g e
he was injured due to the negligent driving of Mr Plenty, suffering
At
first instance, Rose was adjudged 75
and recovery from the
employer was barred altogether, the judge stating that it was not in the scope of Mr
Plenty's employment to take on a child as a subordinate.
On appeal to the
this judgment was reversed, wit
making the leading speech. It was established that, as in the case o
the employee was merely acting in an unauthorised way,
whilst still going about his duties of delivering milk:
“
In the present case it seems to me that the course of the milk roundsman’s
employment was to distribute the milk, collect the money and to bring back the
bottles to the van. He got or allowed this young boy to do part of that business
which was the employers' business. It seems to me that although prohibited, it
was conduct which was within the course of the employment; and on this
ground I think the judge was in error. I agree it is a nice point in these cases on
which side of the line the case falls; but, as I understand the authorities, this
case falls within those in which the prohibition affects only the conduct within
the sphere of the employment and did not take the conduct outside the sphere
altogether. I would hold that the conduct of the roundsman was within the
course of his employment and the masters are liable accordingly, and I would
allow the appeal.
”
Whilst the majority of Lord Denning an
agreed upon this interpretation,
Lawton LJ dissented, arguing that precedents set in two earlier cases,
an
could not be distinguished from the
instant case. In these cases, no liability was found on the part of the employer where
passengers taken by employees - against specific instructions - were injured. Lord
Denning distinguished the cases on the grounds that Leslie Rose had been furthering
the employee's duties, keeping Mr Plenty within the course of his employment.
Rylands v Fletcher [1868] LR 3 HL 330 – tort relative to escape of stored materials
Rylands v Fletcher
[1868
was a decision by th
which estab-
lished a new area of
Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir,
playing no active role in its construction. When the contractors discovered a series of
old coal shafts improperly filled with debris, they chose to continue work rather than
properly blocking them up. The result was that on 11 December 1860, shortly after be-
ing filled for the first time, Rylands's reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine,
run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage. Fletcher brought a claim unde
through which the case eventually went to the
The majority
ruled in favour of Rylands; however,
dissenting, argued that the claimant
had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the
defendant was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's ar-
gument was affirmed, both by the
nd the House of Lords,
leading to the development of the "Rule in
Rylands v Fletcher
";
that "the person who for
his own purpose brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do
mischief, if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is
prima facie
