Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
As a general rule the courts have adopted a wide interpretation in establishing what is not in the course of employment. If the employee’s act was not carried out in the course of employment, he will be deemed to have been on a ‘frolic of his own’ ([ case ]) and the employer will not be vicariously liable. This is so if an employee acts outside the scope of his employment, i.e. does something he is not authorised to do or performs an act he is expressly prohibited from carrying out.
Answer
Joel v Morrison (1834) 6 C & P 501

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
As a general rule the courts have adopted a wide interpretation in establishing what is not in the course of employment. If the employee’s act was not carried out in the course of employment, he will be deemed to have been on a ‘frolic of his own’ ([ case ]) and the employer will not be vicariously liable. This is so if an employee acts outside the scope of his employment, i.e. does something he is not authorised to do or performs an act he is expressly prohibited from carrying out.
Answer
?

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
As a general rule the courts have adopted a wide interpretation in establishing what is not in the course of employment. If the employee’s act was not carried out in the course of employment, he will be deemed to have been on a ‘frolic of his own’ ([ case ]) and the employer will not be vicariously liable. This is so if an employee acts outside the scope of his employment, i.e. does something he is not authorised to do or performs an act he is expressly prohibited from carrying out.
Answer
Joel v Morrison (1834) 6 C & P 501
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
eral rule the courts have adopted a wide interpretation in establishing what is not in the course of employment. If the employee’s act was not carried out in the course of employment, he will be deemed to have been on a ‘frolic of his own’ (<span>Joel v Morrison (1834) 6 C & P 501) and the employer will not be vicariously liable. This is so if an employee acts outside the scope of his employment, i.e. does something he is not authorised to do or performs an act

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised 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.