841459
Description
Mind Map by Falaq Lall, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Falaq Lall
about 10 years ago
|
|
Employers express prohibition
- Manner
- London County Council v
Cattermoles. The employee's job
was to move vehicles but he was
instructed to do so by pushing them
as he did not have a driving license.
He drove a van and hit another
vehicle.
- Within Course of Employment
- Despite the prohibition on driving, the employee
was doing exactly what he was authorised to do
(moving the bus), albeit in an unauthorised
manner.
- Despite the prohibition on driving, the employee
was doing exactly what he was authorised to do
(moving the bus), albeit in an unauthorised
manner.
- Within Course of Employment
- London County Council v
Cattermoles. The employee's job
was to move vehicles but he was
instructed to do so by pushing them
as he did not have a driving license.
He drove a van and hit another
vehicle.
- Scope
- Iqbal v London Transport Executive. The
employee was a bus conductor who was
prohibited from driving, despite this he
moved a bus that was blocking the garage
and crashed, injuring another employee
- Outside course of employment
- The prohibition on driving limited the scope of the employee's
duties. He was not employed to drive so he could not be within the
course of employment when he drove.
- The prohibition on driving limited the scope of the employee's
duties. He was not employed to drive so he could not be within the
course of employment when he drove.
- Outside course of employment
- Iqbal v London Transport Executive. The
employee was a bus conductor who was
prohibited from driving, despite this he
moved a bus that was blocking the garage
and crashed, injuring another employee
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.