xs
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more
Law Cases
Tort Law Cases
Vicarious Liability Cases

Honeywill & Stein v Larkin [1934] 1 KB 191

Country:
United Kingdom
By Oxbridge Law Team
Slesser LJ

  • Plaintiff contracted Defendant to take pictures on the inside of X’s cinema and due to Defendant’s negligence there was fire damage.

  • CA held that Plaintiff would be liable to X and therefore was entitled to recover for negligence from Defendant. 

Slesser LJ

  • General rule is that E is liable for acts of servants/agents but not for those of independent contractors (ICs).

  • To determine whether a party is a servant or an IC, we look at whether Employer “retains control of the actual performance”, in which case it is a servant, or leaves the manner of performance to the party, in which case it is an IC.

  • Is this case within the general rule or the “extra-hazardous” category?

    • This case DID fall within the extra-hazardous category (it involved making explosions on the premises). 

Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch

Similar cases

Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffiths
In cases of negligence transference, when an employee works for a third party, the legal responsibility for their actions shifts from the regular employer to the hirer. Liability determination depend...
Ferguson v Welsh
Defendant, a council, contracted S to demolish a building, who in turn, contrary to their contract with Defendant (there was a clause prohibiting sub-contracting), subcontracted to W, who employed Pl...
Salsbury v Woodland
Defendant 1 contracted Defendant 2 (supposedly competent) to remove a tree from his garden but Defendant 2 did the work so badly that a branch caused telephone wires to fall across the wires on top a...
General Engineering v Kingston & St Andrews Corporation
Firemen, X, employed by Defendant, had an industrial dispute and resolved on a “go-slow”. They took much longer to reach a fire at Plaintiff’s property, therefore, Plaintiff’s property was damaged mu...
Norwich CC v Harvey
Norwich (N) contracted with X for X to extend a swimming pool, including a clause that the risk of fire was purely N’s risk. X subcontracted to Harvey (H) whose negligence caused a fire and damage. N...

Related free notes samples

Products Liability Notes
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB

logo

Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.

©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.