## Facts

- A milk roundsman, employed by the defendant, engaged a 13-year-old boy to assist with deliveries, despite an explicit prohibition from the employer against giving lifts or accepting help on rounds.
- The prohibition was a specific term of the employee’s contract.
- While assisting the roundsman in his milk delivery duties, the boy was injured due to the roundsman’s negligent driving.
- The court was asked to determine whether the employer could be held vicariously liable for the boy's injuries, given the explicit prohibition.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer can be held vicariously liable for an employee's tortious acts that contravene explicit instructions if the acts are carried out within the scope of employment and for the employer’s business purpose.
2. Whether engaging the boy to assist in milk delivery, despite the prohibition, meant the roundsman was acting outside the course of his employment.
3. How the employer’s liability is affected by the employee’s improper method of performing an authorized act.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the employer vicariously liable for the injuries caused to the boy.
- The court found that, despite the explicit prohibition, the roundsman’s actions were sufficiently connected to his employment and performed for the employer’s benefit.
- The judgment emphasized that the wrongful act was an improper manner of carrying out an authorized duty, not a pursuit of a personal objective.
- The employer’s liability was distinguished from cases where employees act solely for their own purposes.

## Legal Principles

- Vicarious liability may arise even when an employee acts contrary to specific prohibitions, provided the act furthers the employer’s business and occurs within the scope of employment.
- The second limb of the Salmond test applies: if an authorized act is performed in a prohibited or improper manner, the employer may still be liable.
- The focus should be on the employee’s overall duty and the purpose behind the act, rather than on strict dissection of authorized versus unauthorized actions.
- Explicit employer prohibitions do not automatically exonerate employers if the wrongful act remained connected to the performance of employment duties.

## Conclusion

Rose v Plenty confirms that employers may be vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of employees done in a prohibited manner, as long as the acts are carried out for the employer’s business within the scope of employment, rather than for the employee's purely personal reasons.


Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141