Here liability was strict 3 negligence where there is

This preview shows page 57 - 59 out of 72 pages.

Here liability was strict. 3. Negligence Where there is an element of personal negligence on the part of the employer as to make him liable for the acts of an independent contractor. E.g. where the employer is negligent or careless in employing an independent contractor for instance, where the contractor is incompetent. Failure to provide precautions in a contract where there is risk of harm unless precautions are taken can make the employer liable for the tort of the contractor. In Robinson-v-Beaconsfield Rural Council (1911) 2 ch 188 The defendant employed an independent contractor, one hook, to clean out cesspools in their district. No arrangements were made for the disposal of the deposits of sewage upon being taken from the cesspools by hook. 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 not contracted with hook for the discharge of this duty (disposing of the sewage) hence they were liable for the acts of the hook`s men in disposing it on to the plaintiffs land. 4. Where the duty of care is wide An example is where the independent contractor is dealing with hazardous circumstances, or work which from its very nature, poses danger to other persons. In Holiday-v-National Telephone Co (1899) 2 Q B 392 The defendant, a Telephone Company, was lawfully engaged in laying telephone wires along a street. They passed the wires through tubes, which they laid in a trench under the level of the pavement. The defendants contracted 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 flare from 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 on the highway was splashed by the molten solder and injured. Held : - The defendant were liable because having authorized the performance of work which from its nature was likely to involve danger to persons using the highway were bound to take care that those who executed the work for them did not negligently cause injury to such persons. Liability of a master-essentials For 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. 997 The defendant employed a general garage hank, part of whose job involved moving vehicles around the garage. He was only supposed to push the vehicles and not to drive them. On one occasion, he drove a vehicle in order to make room for other vehicles.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture