Iqbal v London Transport Executive [1973] EWCA Civ 3
Employer’s vicarious liability for an employee’s negligent act while performing an unauthorised act.
Facts
A bus conductor, who had been previously prohibited by his employer from driving, disobeyed his employer’s instructions and started a bus in the garage and could not stop it. In doing so, he struck and injured a bus driver. The injured person sued the employer for injury caused by the bus conductor’s negligence.
Issues
The issue arose as to whether the bus conductor can be held to have been acting within the course and scope of his employment and whether, accordingly, the employer can be held liable for the injury caused to the man due to his negligent acts.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal dismissed Iqbal’s appeal. The prohibition on conductors driving buses, read with the rules defining their duties, excluded driving altogether from the scope of the conductor’s employment. This differed from an instruction restricting how an employee may carry out a duty within the scope of employment. London Transport was therefore not vicariously liable for the conductor’s negligence.
