Study manual


Limpus v. London General Omnibus (1862), I.H. & C. 526



Yüklə 0,55 Mb.
Pdf görüntüsü
səhifə105/144
tarix07.05.2023
ölçüsü0,55 Mb.
#126531
1   ...   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   ...   144
OLW 204 Law of Tort-Part I,AGGREY WAKILI

 
Limpus v. London General Omnibus (1862), I.H. & C. 526 
 
L.C.C. v. Cattermoles (1953)1 WLR 997; 
 
Twine v. Bean's Express (1946) 62 TLR. 155; 
 
Young v. Box & Co. (1951)1 TLR. 789; 


134 
 
(iv)Wilful wrong of employee 
Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank (1867) LR. 2 Ex. 259; 
 
Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co. (1912) AC. 716; 
 
Morris v. C.W. Martin & Son (1966)1 QB 716; 
 
British Road Services v. Arthur Crutchley (1967)2 All E.R. 785; 
 
Kisumu Trading Stores v. Shah (1965) EA. 314; 
 
Jinder Singh v. Lukoma Ginneries Ltd. (1965) EA 355. 
 
III.Employer and Independent Contractor 
The employer is not liable merely because an independent contractor commits 
a tort in the course of his employment: the employer is liable only if he himself is 
deemed to have committed a tort. 
 
(a)authorising him to commit a tort. 
Allis v. Sheffield Gas Consumers Co. (1853)2 E. 'B. 767 
 
(b) personal negligence on the part of the employer Robinson v. 
Beaconsfield Rural Council (1911)2 Ch. 188. 
 
(c) 
responsibility for the negligent acts of an independent contractor 
Salsbury v. Woodland (1970)1 QB 324. 


135 
 
(d) 
where the employer is not liable. 
Phillips v. Britania Hygienic Laundry (1923)1 KB 537 
 
Padbury v. Holliday & Greenwood, Ltd. (1912), 28 TLR. 494 
 

Yüklə 0,55 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   ...   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   ...   144




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©muhaz.org 2025
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

gir | qeydiyyatdan keç
    Ana səhifə


yükləyin