Honeywill & Stein v Larkin [1934] 1 KB 191
Judgement for the case Honeywill & Stein v Larkin
Table Of Contents
Plaintiff contracted Defendant to take pictures on the inside of X’s cinema and due to Defendant’s negligence there was fire damage.
CA held that Plaintiff would be liable to X and therefore was entitled to recover for negligence from Defendant.
Slesser LJ
General rule is that E is liable for acts of servants/agents but not for those of independent contractors (ICs).
To determine whether a party is a servant or an IC, we look at whether Employer “retains control of the actual performance”, in which case it is a servant, or leaves the manner of performance to the party, in which case it is an IC.
-
Is this case within the general rule or the “extra-hazardous” category?
This case DID fall within the extra-hazardous category (it involved making explosions on the premises).
For Further Study on Honeywill & Stein v Larkin
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
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 StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Tort Law | Products Liability Notes (17 pages) |
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.