“Employers liable for banned employee acts if done in 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 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.
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.
You're reading the free summary of Rose v Plenty. 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
Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141 (CA)
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.