Conway v George Wimpey & Co Ltd [1951] 2 KB 266
Employment – Negligence – Trespass
Facts
Conway (C) was on his way to work on an aerodrome when he hailed a lorry belonging to the George Wimpey & Co Ltd (W) and driven by one of their employees (D). The lorry was crossing the aerodrome taking a number of the defendants’ servants to their work. D had been expressly told by W’s transport manager that he could only transport W’s men, and a notice to this effect had been affixed in his cab. Nevertheless, D gave C a lift for a short distance. When C dismounted the lorry, he caught his right leg under a wheel of the lorry and had to have it amputated after it was badly crushed. C raised an action against W for damages.
Issues
The issue in question was whether W as D’s employers could be held liable for the injury caused to C as a result of the lorry ride D provided for C against W’s instructions.
Decision/Outcome
Both D, as the lorry driver, and C were equally responsible for the accident. C was effectively a trespasser when he mounted the lorry, and it was immaterial whether he knew he was one or not. D performed a wrongful act in allowing C, who was not an employee of W, to ride the lorry, and as this performance was not one which he was employed to perform at all, the act was outside the scope of his employment. W could therefore not be held liable for C’s injury as a result of C’s trespass. Trespass will arise where a person crosses the property of another on reliance of the permission of a person who has no authority to give that permission.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Conway v George Wimpey & Co Ltd [1951] 2 KB 266. The legal principles discussed — vicarious liability, scope of employment, and the treatment of a passenger as a trespasser where the driver lacked authority to carry them — remain good law and continue to be cited in discussions of vicarious liability in English tort law.
Students should note, however, that the law on vicarious liability has developed considerably since 1951. In particular, the Supreme Court in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56 and Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11 refined the test for whether an employee’s act falls within the scope of employment, moving toward a broader ‘close connection’ approach in some contexts. The core principle illustrated by Conway — that an employer is not vicariously liable where an employee acts wholly outside the scope of their authorised duties — nonetheless remains valid. The article’s brief treatment of trespass in this context reflects the case accurately, though trespass to land doctrine has its own separate body of modern authority that goes beyond what this summary addresses.
