100%(5)5 out of 5 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 57 - 59 out of 72 pages.
Here liability was strict.3.NegligenceWhere there is an element of personal negligence on the part of the employer as to make him liable for theacts of an independent contractor.E.g. where the employer is negligent or careless in employing an independent contractor for instance, wherethe contractor is incompetent.Failure to provide precautions in a contract where there is risk of harm unless precautions are taken can makethe employer liable for the tort of the contractor.In Robinson-v-Beaconsfield Rural Council (1911) 2 ch 188The defendant employed an independent contractor, one hook, to clean out cesspools in their district. Noarrangements were made for the disposal of the deposits of sewage upon being taken from the cesspools byhook. Hooks men deposited the sewage on the plaintiffs land.Held: - The defendants had a duty to dispose the sewage and, on construction of the contract, they had notcontracted with hook for the discharge of this duty (disposing of the sewage) hence they were liable for theacts of the hook`s men in disposing it on to the plaintiffs land.4.Where the duty of care is wideAn example is where the independent contractor is dealing with hazardous circumstances, or work whichfrom its very nature, poses danger to other persons.In Holiday-v-National Telephone Co (1899) 2 Q B 392The defendant, a Telephone Company, was lawfully engaged in laying telephone wires along a street. Theypassed the wires through tubes, which they laid in a trench under the level of the pavement. The defendantscontracted with a plumber to connect these tubes at the joints with lead and solder to the satisfaction of the
defendants foreman. In order to make the connections between the tubes, it was necessary to obtain a flarefrom a benzoline lamb of applying heat to the lamb. The lamb was provided with a safety valve.The plumber dipped the lamp into a caldron of melted solder, which was placed over a fire on the footway.The safety valve not being in working order caused the lamb to explore. The plaintiff, who was passing onthe highway was splashed by the molten solder and injured.Held: - The defendant were liable because having authorized the performance of work which from its naturewas likely to involve danger to persons using the highway were bound to take care that those who executedthe work for them did not negligently cause injury to such persons.Liability of a master-essentialsFor a master to be liable for his servant`s torts the tort must have been committed “in the course of employment.” An act is done in the course of employment if;(a)It was a wrongful act authorized by the master(b)It was a wrongful and unauthorized mode of doing some act authorized by the master.In London County Council-v-Caltermoles (Garages) Ltd. (1953) Ltd (1953) I W. L. R. 997The defendant employed a general garage hank, part of whose job involved moving vehicles around the garage. Hewas only supposed to push the vehicles and not to drive them. On one occasion, he drove a vehicle in order to makeroom for other vehicles.