| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd
''Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd'' () 1 QB 716 is an English tort law case, establishing that sub-bailees are liable for the theft or negligence of their staff. Both Lord Denning and Lord Diplock rejected the idea that a contract need exist for a relationship of bailor and bailee to be found. Accordingly, it established an authority in vicarious liability, that employers are fully liable for the thefts - by employees - of goods that they have a duty to take care of.〔Devonshire, p. 330〕
==Facts==
Mrs Morris, the owner of a mink stole, sent her coat to a furrier in London, named Solomon Mark Beder.〔() 1 QB 716, p. 717〕 In a telephone exchange, Mr Beder stated that he did not do any cleaning himself, and that it was sub contracted to the defendant firm, CW Martins & Sons Ltd. They themselves were 'well-known', 'reputable' cleaners,〔 and it was agreed that the fur coat would be sent to them. Upon collecting the fur coat, the defendant company did so under the terms of "The Fur Dressers and Dyers Conditions of Trading, 1955"; while it was in their possession, it was lost. Mrs Morris sued CW Martins & Sons Ltd, claiming that they had not exercised reasonable care in maintaining the coat; this argument was turned down by the first trial judge, who believed that the defendants took reasonable care to safeguard the coat.〔() 1 QB 716, p. 718〕 Additionally, he stated that the acts of the defendant's employee, in stealing the coat, were not committed in the course of his employment, and thus the employer could not be liable for them.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|