1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 
Firm must pay £2,250 damages because employee moved a lorry
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
COURT OF APPEAL this IE week decided that a warehouse storekeeper had acted within the scope of his employment when he tried to drive a customer's lorry which was blocking the warehouse entrance. And it dismissed an appeal by warehouse owner ITW Ltd., of Ajax Avenue Trading Estate, Slough, Bucks, against the decision of Mr. Justice Paull on December 16 awarding the plaintiff, senior storekeeper Mr. Frederick William Kay, of Westlands Avenue, Slough, £2,250 damages.
Lord Justice Sellers (sitting with Lord Justice Danckwerts and Lord Justice Sachs) said Mr. Kay was chief storekeeper at ITW's warehouse. The question was whether ITW was liable for "the most blameworthy act" of a Mr. Ord, employed by ITW as a storekeeper under Mr. Kay.
Mr. Ord's duties included driving a fork-lift truck within the premises and a light van outside them.
On January 5 1965, a customer's 5-ton lorry was collecting goods from the warehouse. The driver had backed it up the ramp to the warehouse and left it in reverse gear. The doors of the warehouse were closed. And Mr. Kay was at the back of the lorry helping the driver to load it.
Mr. Ord wanted to take a fork-lift truck into the warehouse. "He did not make any inquiry about where the driver was but quite unnecessarily and improperly attempted to move the lorry, a task for which he was not qualified. He started the engine, the lorry reversed and Mr. Kay was pinned between the lorry and the warehouse doors, causing him severe injuries."
It was accepted that in seeking to clear the entrance for the truck Mr. Ord was acting in his employer's interests. But ITW contended that by driving a stranger's 5-ton lorry when the driver was available to move it himself, Mr. Ord was acting outside the scope of his employment. Because this was a task he was neither entitled nor qualified to perform.
The case was near the borderline. But His Lordship agreed with the view that while the wrongful conduct was of an exceptionally blameworthy character, it was not so gross and extreme as to be outside the scope of employment. Lord Justice Danckwerts and Lord Justice Sachs concurred.
Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.