Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Honeywill & Stein v Larkin

[1934] 1 KB 191

Case summary last updated at 20/01/2020 17:00 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Honeywill & Stein v Larkin

P contracted D to take pictures on the inside of X’s cinema and due to D’s negligence there was fire damage. CA held that P would be liable to X and therefore was entitled to recover for negligence from D. 
Slesser LJ: General rule is that E is liable for acts of servants/agents but not for those of ICs. To determine whether a party is a servant or an IC, we look at whether E “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). 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>