Rose v Plenty [1975] EWCA Civ 5 (07 July 1975)

Rose v Plenty [1975] EWCA Civ 5 (07 July 1975)

The milk roundsman, though acting in breach of express prohibitions, was performing his employer's business by enlisting the boy's assistance in delivering milk, collecting empties, and obtaining payment. The prohibition regulated conduct within the sphere of employment, not the sphere itself. Therefore, the employer is vicariously liable for the employee's negligence.

Citation
[1975] EWCA Civ 5
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Leslie Francis Rose (an infant by Leslie George Rose, his next friend); 1st Defendant: Christopher Plenty; 2nd Defendant Respondent: Co-operative Retail Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 1975
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Scope of Employment, Negligence, Employer's Liability, Prohibited Acts
Tort Law Employment Law Vicarious Liability Scope of Employment Negligence Employer's Liability Prohibited Acts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslie Francis Rose (an infant by Leslie George Rose, his next friend)

Plaintiff Appellant

Christopher Plenty

1st Defendant

Co-operative Retail Services Limited

2nd Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is an employer vicariously liable for the negligent acts of an employee performed in breach of express prohibitions?
  2. 2 Does the presence of a trespasser on a vehicle affect the employer's liability for the employee's negligence?

Ratio Decidendi

The milk roundsman, though acting in breach of express prohibitions, was performing his employer's business by enlisting the boy's assistance in delivering milk, collecting empties, and obtaining payment. The prohibition regulated conduct within the sphere of employment, not the sphere itself. Therefore, the employer is vicariously liable for the employee's negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiff against second defendants for £620 damages plus £63.90, with costs
  • Leave to appeal to the House of Lords