Defendant was contracted to fill up Plaintiff's petrol tank. X (Defendant’s employee) started the pump and while it was going he lit a cigarette, causing the petrol to catch light and damage Plaintiff’s property.
HL held that the negligent act (lighting a cigarette) WAS done in the course of employment.
He says that “they also serve who only stand and wait” (Why is he quoting Milton? Interesting).
I.e. X was employed to fill up the tank and he was still doing his job when having the cigarette since he had to look over the pumping and check it didn’t overflow
I.e. he was still on duty and performing (albeit negligently) his orders when he caused the fire.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.