Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141

Court of Appeal

Facts: A milkman employed a child to help him, contrary to company rules. The child was injured due to the milkman’s negligent driving.

Issue: Does prohibited conduct by an employee mean they fall outside the scope of employment?

Held: D is vicariously liable to C because the prohibition did not impact the work or tasks that the milkman was obligated to execute, but rather only the manner in which he should perform them.

• Lord Denning MR (Allowing the appeal):
  As long as the employee acts for the employer’s purposes, even if in a prohibited manner, the employer may be held vicariously liable. The employee’s prohibited act does not exclude vicarious liability.