Broom v Morgan [1953] 1 QB 597
Employer’s vicarious liability for personal injury caused by an employee who is himself immune from suit.
Facts
Ms. Broom was employed as the helper of a beer and wine house, of which her husband, Mr. Broom, was employed as the manager. Ms. Broom fell down through a trap that her husband was responsible for keeping closed, sustaining injuries as a result. Ms. Broom sued for injuries due to the negligence of her husband, but the courts held that, under statute, a husband cannot be held liable in tort against his wife. She then sued the employer as vicariously responsible for the negligence of her husband.
Issues
The question arose as to whether a negligent employee’s immunity from tortious liability towards an injured party precluded the employer from being held vicariously liable for the negligence of said employee.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held that the fact that a person has no right of action against an employee by law in respect of a tort does not preclude the vicarious liability of the employer if the employee’s negligent act was conducted within the scope of his employment. In this case, the policy reason the rule concerning tortious liability of the husband was to discourage litigation between spouses; it does not follow that an employer can benefit from this same immunity. In particular, Lord Denning, explained the rationale of vicarious liability as being: “[the master] takes the benefit of the work when it is carefully done, and he must take the liability of it when it is negligently done.” (p. 607) Thus, even if the employee is immune from suit, the employer is not absolved from vicarious liability for the injury. Accordingly, the employer was held vicariously liable for the negligence of Mr. Broom in causing the injuries of Mrs. Broom.
Word Count: 296 words
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a statement of the legal principle established in Broom v Morgan [1953] 1 QB 597. The core holding — that an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s negligence even where the employee is personally immune from suit — continues to represent good law.
Readers should note, however, that the specific statutory context underlying the case (spousal immunity in tort) has since been abolished. The Law Reform (Husband and Wife) Act 1962 removed the rule that spouses could not sue each other in tort, meaning the precise factual scenario in Broom v Morgan could not arise today. The broader principle of vicarious liability discussed in the case remains valid and has been developed further by the Supreme Court in cases such as Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56 and Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10, which refined the test for when a vicarious liability relationship exists. For an up-to-date understanding of vicarious liability, students should read this case alongside those more recent authorities.
