In Twine v Bean Express Ltd [1946] 62 TLR 458, despite express instructions not to do so, a lorry driver (an employee) picked up a hitch-hiker, who was subsequently injured as a result of negligent driving. The Court of Appeal found that [...].
Answer
the hitch-hiker was a trespasser and the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment
Tags
#law #negligence #tort #vl
Question
In Twine v Bean Express Ltd [1946] 62 TLR 458, despite express instructions not to do so, a lorry driver (an employee) picked up a hitch-hiker, who was subsequently injured as a result of negligent driving. The Court of Appeal found that [...].
Answer
?
Tags
#law #negligence #tort #vl
Question
In Twine v Bean Express Ltd [1946] 62 TLR 458, despite express instructions not to do so, a lorry driver (an employee) picked up a hitch-hiker, who was subsequently injured as a result of negligent driving. The Court of Appeal found that [...].
Answer
the hitch-hiker was a trespasser and the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it an>In Twine v Bean Express Ltd [1946] 62 TLR 458, despite express instructions not to do so, a lorry driver (an employee) picked up a hitch-hiker, who was subsequently injured as a result of negligent driving. The Court of Appeal found that <span>the hitch-hiker was a trespasser and the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment.<span><body><html>
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.