Rose v Plenty
Encyclopedia
Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141 is an English tort law
case, on the issue of where an employee is acting within the course of their employment. Vicarious liability
was tenuously found under John William Salmond
's test for course of employment, which states that an employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that was authorised.
under employment in Bristol
by the Co-operative Retail Services Ltd, since Easter of 1970. At the depot where he worked, there was a prohibition on allowing children onto any vehicle, with evidence that the employers and trade unions had attempted to stop such behavior. There were signs to this effect, which were large and visible to employees; one such stated:
However, children still persisted in going to the depot in the hopes of being allowed onto milk floats. Soon after he was employed, Mr Plenty was approached by Leslie Rose, at the time a 13 year old boy, who asked if he could help the employee on his rounds. This was agreed upon, and Rose engaged in collecting money and delivering milk during Mr Plenty's rounds. He was paid a small wage for this help on several occasions, before he was injured due to the negligent driving of Mr Plenty, suffering a fractured leg
. At first instance, Rose was ajudged 75% contributorily negligent
, 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.
, this judgment was reversed, with Lord Denning making the leading speech. It was established that, as in the case of Limpus v London General Omnibus Company the employee was merely acting in an unauthorised way, whilst still going about his duties of delivering milk:
Whilst the majority of Lord Denning and Scarman LJ agreed upon this interpretation, Lawton LJ dissented, arguing that precedents set in two earlier cases, Twine v Bean's Express Ltd and Conway v George Wimpey & Co Ltd, 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.
English tort law
English tort law concerns civil wrongs, as distinguished from criminal wrongs, in the law of England and Wales. Some wrongs are the concern of the state, and so the police can enforce the law on the wrongdoers in court – in a criminal case...
case, on the issue of where an employee is acting within the course of their employment. Vicarious liability
Vicarious liability
Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability...
was tenuously found under John William Salmond
John William Salmond
Sir John William Salmond, KC was a legal scholar, public servant and judge in New Zealand.-Biography:Salmond was born in North Shields, Northumberland, England, in 1862, the eldest son of William Salmond , a Presbyterian minister and professor...
's test for course of employment, which states that an employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that was authorised.
Facts
Mr Plenty was a milkmanMilkman
A milkman is a person, traditionally male, who delivers milk in milk bottles or cartons. Milk deliveries frequently occur in the morning and it is not uncommon for milkmen to deliver products other than milk such as eggs, cream, cheese, butter, yogurt or soft drinks...
under employment in Bristol
Bristol
Bristol is a city, unitary authority area and ceremonial county in South West England, with an estimated population of 433,100 for the unitary authority in 2009, and a surrounding Larger Urban Zone with an estimated 1,070,000 residents in 2007...
by the Co-operative Retail Services Ltd, since Easter of 1970. At the depot where he worked, there was a prohibition on allowing children onto any vehicle, with evidence that the employers and trade unions had attempted to stop such behavior. There were signs to this effect, which were large and visible to employees; one such stated:
"Children and young persons must not in any circumstances be employed by you in the performance of your duties.
However, children still persisted in going to the depot in the hopes of being allowed onto milk floats. Soon after he was employed, Mr Plenty was approached by Leslie Rose, at the time a 13 year old boy, who asked if he could help the employee on his rounds. This was agreed upon, and Rose engaged in collecting money and delivering milk during Mr Plenty's rounds. He was paid a small wage for this help on several occasions, before he was injured due to the negligent driving of Mr Plenty, suffering a fractured leg
Fracture
A fracture is the separation of an object or material into two, or more, pieces under the action of stress.The word fracture is often applied to bones of living creatures , or to crystals or crystalline materials, such as gemstones or metal...
. At first instance, Rose was ajudged 75% contributorily negligent
Contributory negligence
Contributory negligence in common-law jurisdictions is defense to a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. It applies to cases where a plaintiff/claimant has, through his own negligence, contributed to the harm he suffered...
, 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.
Judgment
On appeal to the Court of AppealCourt of Appeal of England and Wales
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales is the second most senior court in the English legal system, with only the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom above it...
, this judgment was reversed, with Lord Denning making the leading speech. It was established that, as in the case of Limpus v London General Omnibus Company the employee was merely acting in an unauthorised way, whilst still going about his duties of delivering milk:
Whilst the majority of Lord Denning and Scarman LJ agreed upon this interpretation, Lawton LJ dissented, arguing that precedents set in two earlier cases, Twine v Bean's Express Ltd and Conway v George Wimpey & Co Ltd, 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.