“Employers liable for banned employee acts if done in course of employment”
The Court of Appeal held that the employer was vicariously liable despite the express prohibition. The majority found that the prohibited act was still performed in the course of employment.
A milkman employed by Co-operative Retail Services was expressly prohibited from allowing children to help with deliveries. Despite this prohibition, he allowed a 13-year-old boy, Leslie Rose, to help with his milk round. The boy was injured due to the milkman's negligent driving and sued both the milkman and his employer.
Whether an employer could be vicariously liable for an employee's tortious acts when those acts were expressly prohibited by the employer.
The majority distinguished between acts that are merely prohibited methods of doing authorized work versus acts that are wholly outside the scope of employment. Lord Denning emphasized that the milkman was still performing his authorized duties of delivering milk, albeit in a prohibited manner for his employer's business purposes.
This case significantly expanded the scope of vicarious liability by establishing that express prohibitions do not automatically exempt employers from liability if the wrongful act remains within the general scope of employment.
An employer can be vicariously liable even when an employee acts contrary to express instructions, provided the wrongful act is closely connected to their employment duties.
The Court of Appeal held the employer liable despite the express prohibition, because the employee was still performing his core job function.
It significantly expanded vicarious liability by establishing that express prohibitions don't automatically exclude liability, focusing instead on connection to employment.
Put your case reading into practice. The free readiness diagnostic covers SQE1 subjects and highlights where to revise next. No account needed.
Try the free SQE1 diagnosticLawton LJ dissented, arguing that Twine v Bean's Express and Conway v George Wimpey could not be distinguished and that the express prohibition took the employee's actions outside the course of employment, making vicarious liability inappropriate.
OSCOLA Citation
Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141 (CA)
Read the judgment for Rose v Plenty as published by The National Archives (Find Case Law).
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
[2026] EWHC 1095 (KB)
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.