翻訳と辞書 ・ Rose Township, Jefferson County, Pennsylvania
・ Rose Township, Michigan
・ Rose Township, Oakland County, Michigan
・ Rose Township, Ogemaw County, Michigan
・ Rose Township, Shelby County, Illinois
・ Rose tree
・ Rose Tree Media School District
・ Rose Tree Park
・ Rose Trellis
・ Rose Tremain
・ Rose trial grounds
・ Rose Troche
・ Rose turret
・ Rose Tyler
・ Rose Under Fire
・ Rose v Plenty
・ Rose v. Locke
・ Rose Valland
・ Rose Valley
・ Rose Valley Glacier
・ Rose Valley Lake (Pennsylvania)
・ Rose Valley, Bulgaria
・ Rose Valley, Chișinău
・ Rose Valley, Pennsylvania
・ Rose Valley, Saskatchewan
・ Rose Valley, Washington
・ Rose Valois
・ Rose Van Thyn
・ Rose Venerini
・ Rose Venkatesan
|
|
| Rose v Plenty ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Rose v Plenty
''Rose v Plenty'' () 1 WLR 141 is an English tort law case, on the issue of where an employee is acting within the course of their employment. Vicarious liability was tenuously found under John William Salmond's test for course of employment, which states that an employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that was authorised.〔, p. 443〕
==Facts==
Mr Plenty was a milkman under employment in Bristol by the Co-operative Retail Services Ltd, since Easter of 1970.〔() 1 WLR 141, p. 142〕 At the depot where he worked, there was a prohibition on allowing children onto any vehicle, with evidence that the employers and trade unions had attempted to stop such behavior. There were signs to this effect, which were large and visible to employees; one such stated:
"Children and young persons must not in any circumstances be employed by you in the performance of your duties.〔() 1 WLR 141, p. 143〕
However, children still persisted in going to the depot in the hopes of being allowed onto milk floats.〔 Soon after he was employed, Mr Plenty was approached by Leslie Rose, at the time a 13-year-old boy, who asked if he could help the employee on his rounds. This was agreed upon, and Rose engaged in collecting money and delivering milk during Mr Plenty's rounds.〔 He was paid a small wage for this help on several occasions, before he was injured due to the negligent driving of Mr Plenty, suffering a fractured leg.〔 At first instance, Rose was adjudged 75% contributorily negligent, and recovery from the employer was barred altogether, the judge stating that it was not in the scope of Mr Plenty's employment to take on a child as a subordinate.〔
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「Rose v Plenty」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.
|
|