(i) The disobedient employee ROSE PLENTY AND ANOTHER [1972] 1 WLR 141 A milkman was prohibited by his employer from taking children with him on his round in order to help him deliver milk and collect empty bottles. In spite of this prohibition, the milkman paid a child of 13 to help him. The child was injured as a result of the negligent driving of the milkman. The trial judge found that the milkman’s employers were not vicariously liable for the milkman’s negligence because in doing something he was prohibited to do he had ceased to be within the course of his employment. The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the employer should be vicariously liable. The following extracts are from the judgment of Lord Denning MR, beginning at p 142:

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-67

Chapter

(i) The disobedient employee ROSE PLENTY AND ANOTHER [1972] 1 WLR 141 A milkman was prohibited by his employer from taking children with him on his round in order to help him deliver milk and collect empty bottles. In spite of this prohibition, the milkman paid a child of 13 to help him. The child was injured as a result of the negligent driving of the milkman. The trial judge found that the milkman’s employers were not vicariously liable for the milkman’s negligence because in doing something he was prohibited to do he had ceased to be within the course of his employment. The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the employer should be vicariously liable. The following extracts are from the judgment of Lord Denning MR, beginning at p 142:

Chapter

(i) The disobedient employee ROSE PLENTY AND ANOTHER [1972] 1 WLR 141 A milkman was prohibited by his employer from taking children with him on his round in order to help him deliver milk and collect empty bottles. In spite of this prohibition, the milkman paid a child of 13 to help him. The child was injured as a result of the negligent driving of the milkman. The trial judge found that the milkman’s employers were not vicariously liable for the milkman’s negligence because in doing something he was prohibited to do he had ceased to be within the course of his employment. The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the employer should be vicariously liable. The following extracts are from the judgment of Lord Denning MR, beginning at p 142:

ABSTRACT

Mr Plenty was a milk roundsman employed at Bristol by the Co-operative Retail Services Ltd. He started working for them at Easter 1970. There were notices up at the depot making it quite clear that the roundsmen were not allowed to take children on the vehicles. One notice said: ‘Children and young persons must not, in any circumstances, be employed by you in the performance of your duties.’ Both employers and trade union did their utmost to stop it. No doubt Mr Plenty knew it was not allowed. But in spite of all these warnings, the practice still persisted. Boys used to hang about the depot waiting to be taken on and some of the roundsmen used to take them.