Employer Not Liable
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
for Man's Offences
AN important decision to employers was given at Newport (Mon.) County Police Court, last Saturday, when the magistrates negatived the South Wales Licensing Authority's contention that "although one might instruct an employee not to do a certain thing, the mere fact that he did it would make the employer liable."
Mr. Thomas Henry Vile, a wellknown Newport mineral-water manufacturer, was summoned for allowing a 17-year-old van boy to drive a heavy lorry, contrary to the Road Traffic Acts. A lorry driver was charged with aiding and abetting. The boy was also summoned.
For the Licensing Authority, it was submitted that, although Mr. Vile might have instructed the youth that he should on no account drive, if he did so, Mr. Vile was liable in law.
Counsel for the employer said that the youth was not employed to drive; he was a van boy. Mr. Vile had posted notices in his premises and had given express verbal instructions to drivers not to permit any infringement Of the regulations. The driver admitted receiving the instructions, but said that he gave the boy permission to drive for about 75-100 yds.
The case against Mr. Vile was dismissed, the driver was cautioned, and the boy ordered to pay 10s. costs On each of two summonses.