“No vicarious liability when employees jointly breach safety rules knowing the risks.”
Two experienced shot-firers, the Shatwell brothers, were injured when testing electrical circuits for firing explosives without taking proper safety precautions. They acted contrary to statutory regulations, their employer's instructions, and their own training. Both knew the conduct was dangerous but proceeded to save time.
Whether an employer could be held vicariously liable for injuries sustained by an employee when both the injured employee and the employee whose conduct caused the injury jointly participated in dangerous conduct contrary to their instructions.
The House of Lords held that ICI was not vicariously liable. Where both employees jointly engaged in conduct they knew to be wrong and dangerous, contrary to their training and instructions, the employer should not be held liable for the consequences.
This case establishes important limits on vicarious liability, particularly in workplace safety contexts. It shows that employers are not liable for every act of their employees and provides guidance on when conduct falls outside the scope of employment, making it essential for employment and tort law studies.
You're reading the free summary of ICI v Shatwell. 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
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656
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.