REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
| Published date | 01 November 1959 |
| Author | Gerald Gardiner |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1959.tb00565.x |
| Date | 01 November 1959 |
BEPOKTS
OF
COMMITTEES
LISTER
v.
THE ROMFORD
ICE
AND
COLD
STORAGE
COMPANY,
LTD.
(Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee)
THE
broad effect of the decision in
Lister
v.
Romford
Ice
4
Cold
Storage
Co.,
Ltd.’
is well known. Briefly
it
is that an employee
is
liable to indemnify
his
employer in respect of damages paid by the
latter to a third party injured by the former’s negligence. Judgment
was given by the House of Lords
on
December
20,
1956.
In March
1957
the Minister of Labour appointed an Inter-Departmental
Committee
“
to study the implications of the judgments in the case
of
Lister
v.
Romiord
Ice
4
Cold
Storage
Co.,
Ltd.,
as they might
affect the relations between employers and workers.” The Com-
mittee, which consisted of representatives of the Ministries of Labour,
Transport and Power, the Lord Chancellor’s Office and the Treasury
Solicitor’s Department, met on eight occasions.
In
the course of its
work the Committee sought the views of a
number
of bodies, includ-
ing Lloyd’s, the British Insurance Association, the British Employers’
Confederation and the Trades Union Congress. Its report was
published early this year.
In order to appreciate the scope of the Committee’s inquiry
and the validity of its conclusions it
is
necessary to consider the
facts of
Lister’s
case. They were somewhat unusual. In
January
1949,
Lister, a lorry driver employed by the Romford Ice
&
Cold Storage Company, reversed his employer’s lorry in a private
yard and knocked down and injured his father, who was also
employed by the company, and was acting as his mate.
In
June
1951,
Lister senior issued a
writ
against the company claiming
damages for personal injuries sdered as a result of Lister junior’s
negligence for which the company as his employers were vicariously
responsible. The court held that the relative responsibility was two-
thirds that
of
Lister junior, and one-third that
of
Lister senior. The
damage was assessed
at
€2,400,
and judgment was entered for Lister
senior for
E1,600,
two-thirds of that amount, and costs.
In
1953
the company’s insurers, by exercising their rights of
subrogation, and without obtaining the consent of the company,
successfully brought an action against Lister junior in order to
recover the damages and costs which they had paid under an
employers’ liability policy. Lister junior appealed to the Court of
Appeal, where his counsel’s argument found favour only with
Denning L.J. (as he then was). Subsequently Lister junior appealed
1
[1957]
A.C.
555;
[1957]
1
All
E.R.
125.
652
To continue reading
Request your trial