Salsbury v Woodland [1970] 1 QB 324

• Defendant 1 contracted Defendant 2 (supposedly competent) to remove a tree from his garden but Defendant 2 did the work so badly that a branch caused telephone wires to fall across the wires on top a highway.

• Plaintiff, a neighbour, went to pick up the wires and was struck by Defendant 3 who came round the bend and was driving too quickly.

• Plaintiff sued all 3.

• Defendant 2 was liable, and CA held that Defendant 3 was indeed liable, but Defendant 1 was not. 

Widgery LJ

• Generally an employer (E) is not vicariously liable for the acts of an independent contractor (only the employer’s own servants).

• There are exceptional cases where the employer can be liable for independent contractor’s (IC) negligence where E owes the victim a duty of care directly.

• He says that a class of case where E can be liable for IC is “extra hazardous” acts i.e. where the acts commissioned are so hazardous in their nature that it is proper to impose a direct obligation on E to see that proper care is taken.

• This does not apply here since the act could have been carried out without danger to anyone if the IC had been competent. 

RELATED CASES

• Various Claimants v Barclays Bank