Course of employment | OCR A-Level Law
For Specification H418
OCR A-Level Law | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 50–60 minutes
This Course of employment A-Level Law revision page explains the traditional Salmond approach to vicarious liability for unintentional torts. Once the tortfeasor's employee status has been established, you must decide whether the tort was committed within or outside the course of employment. OCR H418 expressly requires the Salmond test and the ability to determine whether a tort occurred in or out of the course of employment. You will apply rules covering authorised work done carelessly, prohibited ways of doing a job, acts outside the scope of employment and employees who go on a "frolic of their own".
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain the Salmond test in relation to unintentional torts.
Explain when an authorised act remains within the course of employment.
Explain how liability may arise where an employee performs an authorised job in an unauthorised or careless way.
Explain circumstances in which an employee acts outside the scope of employment.
Apply the concept of a frolic of one's own to factual scenarios.
Reach a supported conclusion on whether an employer may be vicariously liable.
Revision Notes 📚
Course of employment A-Level Law revision overview
Vicarious liability means that one party, usually an employer, may be held legally responsible for a tort committed by another party, usually an employee.
The traditional Salmond approach requires:
a tort to have been committed
the tortfeasor to be an employee
the tort to have been committed in the course of employment.
The first two points have already been developed through the nature of vicarious liability [Lesson 132. Nature and purpose of vicarious liability] and employment status [Lesson 133. Employment status].
This lesson concentrates on the third question:
Was the employee acting in the course of employment when the unintentional tort occurred?
OCR specifically identifies the Salmond test as the approach for unintentional torts.
Why course of employment matters
Being an employee does not make the employer responsible for everything the employee does.
The employee must have been acting sufficiently within their employment when the tort occurred.
Compare:
A delivery driver negligently injures a pedestrian while making deliveries.
with:
The same driver takes the employer's van several miles away to collect furniture for their own home and negligently causes damage.
Both people remain employees.
The difference is what they were doing at the time of the tort.
This is the course-of-employment issue.
The Salmond approach
The traditional approach distinguishes between:
acts which fall within the course of employment
acts which fall outside the course of employment.
OCR mark schemes identify the following important situations.
Within the course of employment
expressly or impliedly authorised acts, Poland v Parr
carrying out authorised work in an unauthorised manner, Limpus v London General Omnibus
carrying out work in a purely careless manner, Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board
unauthorised conduct which nevertheless benefits the employer, Rose v Plenty.
Outside the course of employment
activities outside the scope of employment, Beard v London General Omnibus
an employee on a frolic of their own, Hilton v Thomas Burton
giving unauthorised lifts, Twine v Beans Express.
These categories are extremely useful when applying the Salmond test to unintentional torts.
Authorised acts
An employee will normally be acting in the course of employment when carrying out an act they were expressly or impliedly authorised to perform.
Poland v Parr is the authority identified by OCR for authorised acts.
The central question is:
Was the employee doing work they were employed or authorised to do?
Example
Jamal is employed to drive a delivery van. While making a scheduled delivery, he negligently collides with another vehicle.
Driving the delivery van as part of the delivery work is an authorised activity.
The fact that Jamal performs that activity negligently does not automatically move him outside the course of employment.
Authorised act versus authorised method
This distinction is crucial.
An employer may authorise the job while prohibiting a particular way of carrying it out.
For example:
"Make these deliveries."
is the authorised task.
"Do not exceed the speed limit."
is an instruction governing how that authorised task should be carried out.
If the employee breaks the instruction while still carrying out the authorised task, the employer may remain vicariously liable.
OCR's 2024 assessment tested this distinction directly.
Careless performance of authorised work
An employee may remain within the course of employment where they perform authorised work in a negligent, careless or wrongful way.
The principal authority identified by OCR is:
Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board.
The reasoning is straightforward:
The employee is still doing the employer's work, but is doing it carelessly.
Example
Ella is employed to operate a delivery vehicle. While completing deliveries she fails to take reasonable care and injures a pedestrian.
The negligent driving occurs during the very activity Ella is employed to perform.
The employer may therefore be vicariously liable.
📌 Exam technique: Do not reason that negligence itself places the employee outside employment. If that were true, vicarious liability for negligent employees would be severely limited. Ask whether the employee was still carrying out the employer's work when the carelessness occurred.
An unauthorised way of doing an authorised job
An employee may also remain within the course of employment despite acting against the employer's instructions.
The key authority is:
Limpus v London General Omnibus.
OCR describes the principle as an employee acting against orders but still doing the job they were employed to do.
This requires an important distinction.
Prohibited method
The employer says:
"Do the job, but do not do it in this particular way."
If the employee nevertheless uses the prohibited method, they may still be acting in the course of employment.
Completely different activity
The employee abandons the employer's work and carries out something that is not part of their job at all.
This is more likely to fall outside the course of employment.
The key exam question
Ask:
Did the instruction limit the way the employee should perform their job, or did the employee step outside the job altogether?
That question often separates Limpus situations from cases outside the scope of employment.
The 2024 OCR example: Darcie
OCR examined this directly in 2024.
Darcie was employed as a delivery driver and had been instructed to drive within the law. She nevertheless drove too fast while completing deliveries and negligently injured a pedestrian.
OCR's mark scheme treated this as:
an authorised act, driving
performed in an unauthorised and careless way
while Darcie was still carrying out her deliveries.
Relevant authorities included:
Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board
Limpus v London General Omnibus.
The employer was therefore capable of being vicariously liable.
The important reasoning is:
Darcie disobeyed an instruction, but she had not abandoned the work she was employed to perform.
Acting against orders can still be within employment
Do not automatically write:
"The employee broke an express instruction, so the employer cannot be liable."
OCR's mark schemes specifically recognise liability where an employee continues doing their job but does so contrary to instructions.
Instead, ask:
What was the employee employed to do?
What instruction did they disobey?
Were they nevertheless still trying to carry out the employer's work?
If yes, the tort may remain within the course of employment.
Employer benefit
Another relevant principle is whether the employee's conduct is undertaken for the benefit of the employer.
The OCR authority is:
Rose v Plenty.
An employee may act contrary to an instruction but nevertheless still be carrying out the employer's business.
The fact that the conduct benefits or furthers the employer's work can support the conclusion that it remains within the course of employment.
The 2024 OCR example: Emma
In OCR's 2024 examination:
Emma was a delivery driver
employees had been told not to use unauthorised help
Emma nevertheless took her son Jack with her to help make deliveries
she was trying to complete the deliveries more quickly
she then negligently injured Jack.
OCR's mark scheme reasoned that:
Emma was still performing the authorised activity of making deliveries
she was performing the job in an unauthorised way
using Jack's help was intended to speed up the employer's deliveries
the employer therefore benefited from the activity.
Rose v Plenty was directly relevant.
The employer could therefore be vicariously liable despite the express prohibition.
Benefit is useful, but keep the full question in mind
Do not reduce the test to:
"Did the employer benefit?"
The central issue remains whether the employee was acting within the course of employment.
Employer benefit is a particularly useful factor where:
the employee disobeys instructions
but is still trying to further the employer's business.
Outside the course of employment
Not every negligent act committed by an employee will result in employer liability.
The employee may instead have stepped outside the scope of their employment.
OCR identifies three particularly useful categories:
activities not within the scope of employment
being on a frolic of one's own
unauthorised lifts.
Activities outside the scope of employment
The relevant authority is:
Beard v London General Omnibus.
The principle is that the employer will not normally be vicariously liable where the employee's conduct involves an activity outside the scope of the job they were employed to do.
The key question is:
Was the employee doing something they were employed to do at all?
This differs from Limpus, where the employee is doing the right general job but using the wrong method.
Scope comparison
Situation | Likely analysis |
Employee performs their job carelessly | Within course of employment |
Employee performs their job using a prohibited method | May still be within course of employment |
Employee does something outside the activities they were employed to perform | May be outside course of employment |
Frolic of one's own
An employee may act outside the course of employment where they abandon the employer's business and pursue a purely personal activity.
OCR refers to this as being on a:
"frolic of his own"
The key authority is:
Hilton v Thomas Burton.
OCR's 2024 mark scheme explains the core distinction:
The employer may be liable where the employee is, however misguidedly, furthering the employer's business, but not where the employee is solely pursuing their own interests.
Spotting a frolic
Look for facts showing that the employee:
has abandoned their proper work
is carrying out a purely personal errand
has significantly diverted from their employment
is obtaining no work-related benefit for the employer.
The more clearly the employee is pursuing only personal interests, the stronger the argument that they are outside the course of employment.
The 2024 OCR example: Heidi
OCR's 2024 question provides an excellent contrast with Darcie and Emma.
Heidi was employed as a delivery driver.
During her lunch break she:
used the employer's van
travelled five miles away
collected furniture she had bought for her own flat
negligently allowed the van to damage another person's car.
OCR's mark scheme concluded that:
Heidi was using the van for a private purpose
she had diverted away from her work
she was five miles away
the activity gave no benefit to the employer
she was therefore on a frolic of her own under Hilton v Thomas Burton.
The employer would not be vicariously liable.
Compare Darcie, Emma and Heidi
The 2024 assessment is particularly useful because all three tortfeasors were delivery drivers employed by the same company.
Employee | What were they doing? | Result |
Darcie | Driving between deliveries but negligently and against instructions | Within course of employment |
Emma | Making deliveries using prohibited help, in order to speed up the employer's work | Within course of employment |
Heidi | Driving away to collect her own furniture for a purely personal purpose | Outside course of employment |
This shows why you should focus on the activity being undertaken, not simply the person's job title.
Unauthorised lifts
OCR also identifies Twine v Beans Express as authority for circumstances involving unauthorised lifts which fall outside the course of employment.
The important point is that an employee using their employment situation for a purpose outside the authorised scope may place the conduct beyond the employer's vicarious liability.
Do not assume that every case involving a vehicle is automatically governed by the same rule.
Instead, ask whether the employee is:
performing the employer's work
merely carrying it out carelessly or improperly
or instead:
using the opportunity created by employment for an activity outside its scope.
A practical distinction: wrong way versus wrong activity
This is one of the most useful ways to approach an OCR scenario.
Wrong way of doing the right job
Examples:
driving too fast while making deliveries
carrying out an authorised task carelessly
using an unauthorised method to complete assigned work.
Likely authorities:
Century Insurance
Limpus
Rose v Plenty.
These can remain within the course of employment.
Doing the wrong activity altogether
Examples:
abandoning work for a personal errand
carrying out an activity outside the employee's job
pursuing purely personal interests.
Likely authorities:
Beard
Hilton
Twine.
These may fall outside the course of employment.
Quick decision table
Question | If yes |
Is TF doing the job they were employed to do? | Stronger argument for course of employment |
Are they merely doing it carelessly? | Consider Century Insurance |
Are they doing it in a prohibited way? | Consider Limpus |
Does the activity still further or benefit D's business? | Consider Rose v Plenty |
Is TF doing something outside their job's scope? | Consider Beard |
Has TF abandoned work for a personal purpose? | Consider Hilton v Thomas Burton |
Does the conduct involve an unauthorised activity beyond the job's scope? | Consider Twine v Beans Express |
The Salmond test is particularly relevant to unintentional torts
OCR's specification is precise.
It requires:
the Salmond test for imposing liability in relation to unintentional torts.
This matters when selecting the correct vicarious liability approach.
Unintentional tort
Where the employee commits negligence while carrying out ordinary employment activities, the traditional Salmond principles are particularly useful.
For example:
A delivery driver carelessly injures a pedestrian.
Course-of-employment authorities such as Century Insurance, Limpus, Rose v Plenty and Hilton may help determine liability.
Intentional tort
Where the facts concern intentional wrongdoing, the modern close connection approach becomes especially important.
That is the subject of closely connected torts [Lesson 136. Closely connected torts].
OCR's 2022 examiner report expressly distinguished the two approaches:
the Salmond approach can be suitable for a typical unintentional tort
intentional torts may require the close-connection approach.
⚠️ Exam warning: Do not automatically use Salmond negligence cases to solve a problem centred on deliberate assaults or other intentional wrongdoing.
Course of employment is not a defence
If an employee is found to have acted outside the course of employment, this does not mean:
"The employer has a frolic-of-one's-own defence."
Instead, the claimant has failed to establish part of the basis for vicarious liability.
OCR's 2023 examiner report specifically identifies this misconception. Being on a frolic of one's own is not a defence.
Use the correct wording:
The tort was outside the course of employment, so the required connection for vicarious liability is not established.
A structured method for Salmond problem questions
When the employee's status is established and the tort is unintentional, use this sequence.
Step 1: Identify the employee's job
Ask:
What was TF employed to do?
Be precise.
For example:
TF is employed to make deliveries.
Step 2: Identify what TF was actually doing
At the moment the tort occurred:
were they carrying out that work?
doing it carelessly?
doing it in a prohibited way?
furthering the employer's business?
or pursuing a personal activity?
Step 3: Select the closest legal principle
For example:
Careless authorised work
→ Century Insurance
Authorised job performed contrary to instructions
→ Limpus
Unauthorised method which benefits employer
→ Rose v Plenty
Activity outside job's scope
→ Beard
Personal frolic
→ Hilton
Unauthorised lift
→ Twine.
Step 4: Link the facts to the authority
Do not merely name the case.
For example:
Like the employee in the principle illustrated by Limpus, Mia is disobeying an instruction about the manner in which her work should be performed, but she is still carrying out the delivery work she was employed to do.
Step 5: Reach a supported conclusion
State clearly:
Therefore, the tort is likely to have occurred within the course of employment and D is likely to be vicariously liable.
or:
Therefore, TF has abandoned D's business for a purely personal purpose and the tort is outside the course of employment, so D is unlikely to be vicariously liable.
Worked example 1: careless authorised work
Marcus is employed by City Deliveries Ltd as a delivery driver. While driving between two customer deliveries, he becomes distracted and negligently crashes into Priya's parked car.
Assume Marcus is an employee and has committed negligence.
Identify the activity
Marcus is driving between deliveries.
That is part of the job he is employed to perform.
Apply the principle
The negligence occurs while Marcus performs authorised work in a careless way.
Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board supports the principle that careless performance of authorised work can remain within the course of employment.
Conclusion
Marcus is likely to have been acting within the course of employment.
City Deliveries Ltd may therefore be vicariously liable for his negligence.
Worked example 2: prohibited method
Asha is employed to deliver parcels. Her employer tells all drivers never to take shortcuts through a pedestrianised loading area. Asha ignores the instruction because it makes her deliveries faster. While driving through the area she negligently injures Leo.
Employer instruction
Asha has clearly disobeyed an instruction.
However, that is not conclusive.
What was Asha doing?
She was still:
delivering parcels
trying to complete the work given to her
furthering her employer's business.
Relevant principle
The facts point towards Limpus v London General Omnibus because Asha is performing authorised work in a prohibited manner.
The employer's benefit from completing deliveries may also reinforce the connection.
Conclusion
The tort is likely to remain within the course of employment despite Asha's disobedience.
Worked example 3: frolic of one's own
Ben is employed as a driver. During his working day, he leaves his assigned route and drives several miles to collect a television he has bought for his home. While doing so, he negligently damages another vehicle.
Employee's activity
Ben is not carrying out his employer's work.
He has left the assigned route for a personal purpose.
Employer benefit
There is no apparent benefit to the employer.
Relevant principle
This closely raises the frolic of one's own principle in Hilton v Thomas Burton.
Conclusion
Ben's conduct is likely to fall outside the course of employment.
The employer is therefore unlikely to be vicariously liable for this tort.
Worked example 4: distinguishing a prohibited method from a frolic
Dani is a restaurant delivery driver. She is told not to use passengers to help deliver orders. She nevertheless takes her sister with her and asks her to carry food from the van to customers' doors so that deliveries can be completed faster. Dani negligently closes the van door on her sister's hand.
The employer may argue that Dani expressly broke instructions.
However:
Dani is still completing restaurant deliveries
the unauthorised assistance speeds up the employer's work
the activity benefits the employer.
This is much closer to Rose v Plenty than to a frolic of one's own.
The prohibited method does not necessarily remove Dani from the course of employment.
Link to the modern approach
The modern approach to vicarious liability can express the second requirement as a sufficient connection between the employment relationship and the tortfeasor's wrongdoing.
OCR's 2024 mark scheme notes that the established Salmond authorities remain relevant when considering negligent conduct.
For this lesson, however, your focus should remain on the specification requirement:
the Salmond test for unintentional torts and whether conduct is within or outside the course of employment.
Intentional torts and the modern close-connection analysis are developed fully in closely connected torts [Lesson 136. Closely connected torts].
You will then be able to bring the different approaches together when studying evaluating vicarious liability [Lesson 137. Evaluating vicarious liability].
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Course of employment | The range of activities sufficiently connected with the work the employee is employed to perform. | Decide whether the employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's unintentional tort. |
Salmond test | The traditional approach requiring an employee's tort to occur in the course of employment for vicarious liability to arise. | Apply the traditional rules to negligence and other unintentional torts. |
Unauthorised manner | Performing an authorised job in a way which the employer has prohibited. | Use Limpus to explain why disobeying instructions does not automatically remove the employee from employment. |
Scope of employment | The activities falling within the work the employee is employed to carry out. | Apply Beard where the employee undertakes an activity outside their job. |
Frolic of one's own | A situation where an employee abandons the employer's business and pursues their own personal interests. | Apply Hilton v Thomas Burton when deciding that the tort occurred outside the course of employment. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Base the conclusion on legal principle, not everyday common sense. OCR's 2024 report found that weaker candidates sometimes correctly stated whether an employee was inside or outside the course of employment but could not support the conclusion with the relevant law.
Examiner hint: Use the factual scaffolding. Stronger 2024 responses recognised similarities between the scenario and leading authorities and linked those facts directly to the relevant rule before reaching a conclusion.
Examiner hint: A strong piece of AO2 should contain three things: the correct outcome, the relevant legal principle and a specific link to the facts. OCR highlighted this method when discussing the successful application of Rose v Plenty in the 2024 paper.
Examiner hint: Read the question exclusions carefully. In 2024, employment status was expressly established, yet many candidates still spent time applying employment-status tests. This added irrelevant material rather than improving the answer.
Examiner hint: Do not run every tortfeasor through every area of vicarious liability. OCR criticised responses that unnecessarily established negligence, employment status and other matters already provided by the question instead of focusing on the course-of-employment issue.
Examiner hint: Select the Salmond approach for the right kind of problem. OCR has confirmed that the traditional Salmond tests are appropriate for typical unintentional torts, while intentional wrongdoing may require the separate close-connection approach.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Assuming any breach of an employer's instruction ends liability
Why this is incorrect: An employee may disobey instructions about how to perform their job while still doing the work they were employed to do.
How to improve: Ask whether the instruction limits the method of doing an authorised task. If so, apply Limpus v London General Omnibus.
Mistake: Saying negligent work must be outside employment because the employer did not authorise negligence
Why this is incorrect: The question is whether the underlying activity was authorised, not whether the employer authorised careless behaviour.
How to improve: Use Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board where authorised work is performed negligently.
Mistake: Treating every prohibited act as the same
Why this is incorrect: There is a major difference between:
performing an authorised job in a prohibited way
abandoning the job to pursue a personal activity.
How to improve: Use the "wrong way versus wrong activity" distinction.
Mistake: Assuming working hours decide the issue
Why this is incorrect: An employee can be outside the course of employment even during their working day if they abandon their work for a personal frolic.
How to improve: Focus on what the employee was actually doing and whether it furthered the employer's business.
Mistake: Assuming use of the employer's property means the employee is within employment
Why this is incorrect: Heidi in OCR's 2024 scenario used the employer's van, but was nevertheless outside the course of employment because she was using it for a purely personal trip.
How to improve: Look beyond ownership of the vehicle or equipment and identify the purpose of the employee's activity.
Mistake: Calling a frolic of one's own a defence
Why this is incorrect: A frolic is part of determining whether the claimant has established vicarious liability. It is not a separate defence.
How to improve: Conclude that the tort occurred outside the course of employment, so the relevant requirement of vicarious liability is not satisfied.
Mistake: Using Salmond principles automatically for intentional wrongdoing
Why this is incorrect: OCR specifies the Salmond test in relation to unintentional torts.
How to improve: Where the problem involves intentional wrongdoing, consider whether closely connected torts [Lesson 136. Closely connected torts] provides the appropriate framework.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
State the three requirements of the traditional Salmond approach to vicarious liability. [3 marks]
Question 2
Explain why an employee may remain within the course of employment when carrying out authorised work negligently. Refer to relevant legal authority. [4 marks]
Question 3
Explain the difference between:
carrying out an authorised job in an unauthorised manner, and
acting outside the scope of employment.
Refer to relevant legal authority. [6 marks]
Question 4
Explain what is meant by an employee being on a frolic of their own. [4 marks]
Question 5
Noah is employed by Swift Couriers as a delivery driver. Swift instructs all drivers to obey speed limits. While driving between two deliveries, Noah drives too fast and negligently injures a pedestrian.
Assume Noah is an employee and has committed negligence.
Advise whether Noah was acting within the course of employment. [6 marks]
Question 6
Layla is employed to deliver groceries. Her employer tells her never to use unauthorised helpers. Layla asks her brother to help carry shopping to customers' doors because this allows her to complete more deliveries. While continuing the delivery round, Layla negligently injures her brother.
Assume employment status and negligence are established.
Advise whether the tort occurred within the course of employment. [8 marks]
Question 7
Oscar is employed as a delivery driver. During his lunch break, he drives the company van six miles away from his delivery area to collect a bicycle he has bought for himself. While loading the bicycle, he negligently allows the van to roll into another vehicle.
Assume Oscar's employee status and negligence are established.
Advise whether his employer is likely to be vicariously liable. [8 marks]
Question 8
RapidDrop Ltd employs Amina, Ben and Chloe as delivery drivers. Their status as employees is established.
Amina is instructed never to use her phone while driving. While making deliveries she reads a work-related notification, loses concentration and negligently collides with a parked vehicle.
Ben is told not to use anyone else to assist with deliveries. He nevertheless asks his adult daughter to carry parcels from the van because this helps him complete RapidDrop's delivery schedule more quickly. He negligently drives away while she is getting out of the van and injures her.
Chloe leaves her delivery route and drives eight miles to visit a shop to buy furniture for her own home. While doing so she negligently injures a cyclist.
Advise RapidDrop Ltd whether it is likely to be vicariously liable for the negligence of Amina, Ben and Chloe. Do not discuss employment status, defences or remedies. [20 marks]
Indicative answers and mark scheme
Question 1
Award 1 mark each for:
a tort must have been committed
the tortfeasor must be an employee
the tort must have occurred in the course of employment.
Question 2
Award up to 4 marks for explaining that:
an employee can remain within the course of employment while carrying out authorised work
careless or negligent performance does not automatically take the employee outside employment
the employee remains engaged in the employer's business
Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board is relevant authority.
Question 3
Award up to 6 marks for explaining that:
an employee may still be within the course of employment where the job itself is authorised but the method is prohibited
Limpus v London General Omnibus is relevant
an employer may remain liable where the employee is still doing the job they were employed to do
activities which are themselves outside the employee's job may fall outside the course of employment
Beard v London General Omnibus is relevant
the distinction is therefore between the wrong method of performing authorised work and undertaking the wrong activity altogether.
Question 4
Award up to 4 marks for explaining that:
an employee abandons or diverts from the employer's business
the employee pursues their own personal interests
the conduct falls outside the scope of employment
Hilton v Thomas Burton is relevant authority.
Question 5
A strong response should explain:
Noah is performing an authorised activity, making deliveries
the negligent driving takes place between deliveries
his excessive speed is a careless or prohibited way of carrying out the job
Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board supports liability for negligent performance of authorised work
Limpus v London General Omnibus demonstrates that acting against instructions does not necessarily remove an employee from the course of employment where they are still doing their job.
Conclusion: Noah is likely to have been acting within the course of employment, so Swift Couriers may be vicariously liable.
Question 6
A strong answer should explain:
Layla is carrying out the authorised task of making deliveries
she has disobeyed an express instruction not to use unauthorised help
this concerns the way she carries out her delivery work rather than abandonment of that work
her brother's assistance enables more deliveries to be completed
the activity therefore furthers or benefits the employer's business
Limpus v London General Omnibus is relevant to prohibited methods of carrying out authorised work
Rose v Plenty is particularly relevant where unauthorised help is used to further the employer's business.
Conclusion: The tort is likely to have occurred within the course of employment and the employer is likely to be vicariously liable.
Question 7
A strong answer should explain:
Oscar is employed to make deliveries
travelling six miles to collect his own bicycle is not part of his delivery work
the journey serves a purely private purpose
it provides no benefit to the employer
Oscar has diverted from his work and is pursuing his own interests
Hilton v Thomas Burton supports the principle that an employee on a frolic of their own acts outside the course of employment.
Conclusion: Oscar is likely to have been outside the course of employment, so his employer is unlikely to be vicariously liable.
Question 8
A high-level answer should deal with each employee separately and concentrate on the course-of-employment requirement.
Amina
Amina is carrying out the authorised activity of making deliveries when the negligence occurs.
She has been expressly instructed not to use her phone while driving, but she is still carrying out RapidDrop's work.
The fact that she performs the authorised activity carelessly supports application of Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board.
Her breach of the employer's instruction concerns the manner in which she performs her driving duties. Limpus v London General Omnibus demonstrates that disobedience of an instruction does not automatically place an employee outside the course of employment where they remain engaged in their authorised work.
Conclusion: Amina is likely to have been acting within the course of employment. RapidDrop is therefore likely to be vicariously liable for her negligence.
Ben
Ben has been instructed not to use unauthorised assistance.
However, he remains engaged in his delivery work.
His daughter's assistance:
helps parcels reach customers
allows the delivery schedule to be completed more quickly
therefore furthers RapidDrop's business.
Limpus v London General Omnibus supports the principle that an unauthorised method of performing authorised work can remain within employment.
The facts are also analogous to the principle in Rose v Plenty, because the unauthorised assistance benefits the employer's business.
Ben's negligent driving occurs while carrying out that delivery operation.
Conclusion: Ben is likely to have been acting within the course of employment, so RapidDrop is likely to be vicariously liable.
Chloe
Chloe has left her assigned delivery route and travelled eight miles for a completely personal purpose.
Buying furniture for her own home:
does not form part of her employment
does not further RapidDrop's business
provides no benefit to RapidDrop.
The facts strongly indicate that Chloe has abandoned her employer's business and is pursuing her own interests.
Under Hilton v Thomas Burton, she is likely to be on a frolic of her own.
The position is comparable to the type of reasoning OCR applied to Heidi in the 2024 examination, where a delivery driver used the employer's van to collect personal furniture away from her work and was outside the course of employment.
Conclusion: Chloe's negligence is likely to fall outside the course of employment, so RapidDrop is unlikely to be vicariously liable for the cyclist's injury.
Overall conclusion
RapidDrop is likely to be vicariously liable for Amina and Ben, because both remain engaged in the employer's delivery business despite performing their work carelessly or contrary to instructions.
RapidDrop is unlikely to be vicariously liable for Chloe, because her personal journey places her outside the scope of employment and on a frolic of her own.
Comments