Legal Case Summary
Gregory v Piper [1829] 9 B & C 591
Trespass & Vicarious Liability
Facts
Gregory (G) owned a pub called the Rising Sun with a stable-yard in the back which could be accessed by a back gate through Old King’s Yard. Piper (P) owned the property surrounding Old King’s Yard and disputed G’s right to pass through the yard to his stable. P employed a labourer (S) to lay down a quantity of rubbish, consisting of bricks, mortar, stones, and dirt, near G’s stable-yard, in order to obstruct the way. Part of this rubbish rolled against G’s wall and gates, and G refused to remove it. G raised an action of trespass against G.
Issues
The issue in question was whether a master could be liable for the trespass which occurred as a result of instructions the master gave to another in his employment. P claimed he could not be held liable because he had instructed S not to let the rubbish touch the wall, and the fact that the rubbish resulted in a trespass of G’s property was due to negligence on S’s part.
Decision/Outcome
A master is liable in trespass for any act done by his servant in the course of executing his orders with ordinary care. P was therefore liable for trespass as it was a probable and foreseeable result of the S‟s act which P had instructed S to do. The trespass was a necessary or natural consequence of the act ordered to be done by P, therefore making P as the employer liable.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately describes the decision in Gregory v Piper (1829) 9 B & C 591, a foundational authority on vicarious liability in trespass. The principle that a master (employer) is liable for a trespass that is the natural or probable consequence of an act ordered by the master remains good law and continues to be cited in the context of vicarious liability and trespass in English tort law. No subsequent statutory change or higher court decision has overruled or materially qualified the specific proposition stated here. Readers should note that the broader law of vicarious liability has developed considerably through more recent case law — including Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56 and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 — particularly regarding the scope of the employment relationship and the distinction between employees and independent contractors. Those developments do not affect the accuracy of this summary of the 1829 case itself, but students relying on this case as part of wider vicarious liability research should consult up-to-date materials covering the modern case law.
