“Employers liable for employees' torts despite express prohibitions if within employment scope.”
A bus driver employed by London General Omnibus Company raced another bus and caused an accident, despite express company instructions prohibiting racing. The claimant sued the company for damages.
Whether an employer can be held vicariously liable for an employee's tortious acts committed in breach of express instructions but within the general scope of employment.
The court held that the employer was vicariously liable. The company was responsible for the driver's negligent actions despite the prohibition on racing.
This case established the fundamental principle of vicarious liability in English tort law, distinguishing between unauthorized acts within the scope of employment and acts outside that scope. It remains a cornerstone case for understanding employer liability and is essential for tort law students.
You're reading the free summary of Limpus v London General Omnibus. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Limpus v London General Omnibus (1862) 1 H & C 526
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.