Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141

Facts

  • A milk roundsman, employed by the defendant, engaged a 13-year-old boy to assist with deliveries, despite an explicit prohibition from the employer against giving lifts or accepting help on rounds.
  • The prohibition was a specific term of the employee’s contract.
  • While assisting the roundsman in his milk delivery duties, the boy was injured due to the roundsman’s negligent driving.
  • The court was asked to determine whether the employer could be held vicariously liable for the boy's injuries, given the explicit prohibition.

Issues

  1. Whether an employer can be held vicariously liable for an employee's tortious acts that contravene explicit instructions if the acts are carried out within the scope of employment and for the employer’s business purpose.
  2. Whether engaging the boy to assist in milk delivery, despite the prohibition, meant the roundsman was acting outside the course of his employment.
  3. How the employer’s liability is affected by the employee’s improper method of performing an authorized act.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held the employer vicariously liable for the injuries caused to the boy.
  • The court found that, despite the explicit prohibition, the roundsman’s actions were sufficiently connected to his employment and performed for the employer’s benefit.
  • The judgment emphasized that the wrongful act was an improper manner of carrying out an authorized duty, not a pursuit of a personal objective.
  • The employer’s liability was distinguished from cases where employees act solely for their own purposes.

Legal Principles

  • Vicarious liability may arise even when an employee acts contrary to specific prohibitions, provided the act furthers the employer’s business and occurs within the scope of employment.
  • The second limb of the Salmond test applies: if an authorized act is performed in a prohibited or improper manner, the employer may still be liable.
  • The focus should be on the employee’s overall duty and the purpose behind the act, rather than on strict dissection of authorized versus unauthorized actions.
  • Explicit employer prohibitions do not automatically exonerate employers if the wrongful act remained connected to the performance of employment duties.

Conclusion

Rose v Plenty confirms that employers may be vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of employees done in a prohibited manner, as long as the acts are carried out for the employer’s business within the scope of employment, rather than for the employee's purely personal reasons.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal