Drivers were expressly prohibited from giving lifts to employees of other companies. The plaintiff was injured as a result of negligent driving by the employer’s driver. The defendants evaded vicarious liability as the driver was doing an expressly forbidden act.
Answer
Conway v George Wimpey & Co [1951] 2 KB 266
Tags
#law #negligence #tort #vl
Question
Drivers were expressly prohibited from giving lifts to employees of other companies. The plaintiff was injured as a result of negligent driving by the employer’s driver. The defendants evaded vicarious liability as the driver was doing an expressly forbidden act.
Answer
?
Tags
#law #negligence #tort #vl
Question
Drivers were expressly prohibited from giving lifts to employees of other companies. The plaintiff was injured as a result of negligent driving by the employer’s driver. The defendants evaded vicarious liability as the driver was doing an expressly forbidden act.
Answer
Conway v George Wimpey & Co [1951] 2 KB 266
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it Similarly, in Conway v George Wimpey & Co [1951] 2 KB 266 drivers were expressly prohibited from giving lifts to employees of other companies. The plaintiff was injured as a result of negligent driving by the employer’s driver. The defendants
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.