Young v Edward Box & Company Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1951
Date1951
CourtCourt of Appeal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
11 cases
  • Rose v Plenty
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 7 July 1975
    ...C. 623; Harris v. Birkenhead 1975 1 W. L. R. 379. So far as vehicles are concerned, I venture to go back to my own judgment in Young v. Edward Box & Co. Ltd. (1951) 1 T. L. R. 789, at page 793, when I said: "In every case where it is sought to make the master liable for the conduct of his ......
  • Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 March 1977
    ...simply this: Was the servant liable? If yes, was he acting in the course of his employment? If yes, then the master is liable, see Young v. Box (Edward) & Co. (1951) 1 Times Law Reports at page 793: Imperial Chemical Industries v. Shatwell (1965) Appeal Cases at pages 685/6 by Lord Pearce. ......
  • Beharry v Supersad et Al
    • Trinidad & Tobago
    • High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
    • 28 June 1989
    ...course of his employment, even though it is a prohibited act. That is clear from Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co.: Young v. Box [1951] 1 T.L.R. 789 and Ilkiw v. Samuels.” PUBLIC POLICY 212 Scarman, L.J. at p. 103 in the Rose v. Plenty case (supra) said – “Should there be an attentive vi......
  • Bushell v Chefette Restaurants Ltd et Al
    • Barbados
    • High Court (Barbados)
    • 19 June 1978
    ...in their vehicles. Indeed, the plaintiff in the instant case is in a stronger position than the plaintiff in Young v. Edward Box & Co. [1951] 1 T.L.R. 789 where, in accordance with a practice which had existed for a number of Sunday evenings, when the public omnibus service was crowded, the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • STATUTE AND THEORIES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY.
    • Australia
    • 1 December 2019
    ...Lord Denning MR later retracted his support for the MTT in Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141, 144, quoting Young v Edward Box & Co Ltd [1951] 1 TLR 789, 793 (Denning (90) Broom (n 86) 609-10 (Denning LJ). However, Hodson LJ denied that the immunity was merely procedural: at 611-12. This pa......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT