Legal Case Summary
Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co Ltd [1957] AC 555
Tort law – Contract of service – Vicarious liability
Facts
The defendant was a lorry driver who was employed by the plaintiffs to drive their lorry to a slaughterhouse in order to collect waste. The driver took his father with him for the journey and during the course of which, the son reversed the lorry into the father, causing injury. The father sued the plaintiffs for damages for personal injury and recovered damages following his son’s driving. The company also bought an action against the driver claiming damages for breaching an implied term in his service contract that he would use reasonable skill and care during the course of driving.
Issues
It was important for the court, in this case, to establish whether the driver owed his employer a duty to use reasonable skill and care in the course of his employment. The court was also required to establish the quantum of damage in its judgment.
Decision / Outcome
The court held that the driver was required by a contractual obligation to perform the driving with reasonable skill and care. On this basis, the company was entitled to recover damages for the breach of contract and the driver could not rely on any implied term in the contract that might have indemnified him from such action as this would have been all-embracing in scope and therefore the employer would bear the burden under any action. The quantum of damage was proven by the fact that the company was liable to pay the amount of the judgment and cost in the first instance.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co Ltd [1957] AC 555. The House of Lords did hold that an employee owes an implied contractual duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, and that the employer could recover indemnity from the employee in respect of damages paid to a third party injured by that employee’s negligence.
The case remains good law and is still regularly cited in discussions of vicarious liability, the contract of employment, and contribution between wrongdoers. However, readers should be aware of several important practical and legal developments since 1957. Following the decision, insurers entered into a gentlemen’s agreement (the 1959 Agreement of the British Insurance Association) not to exercise subrogation rights against employees in such circumstances except where the employee colluded in the loss or where the employer expressly required indemnity — this significantly limits the practical impact of the ruling in employment contexts. Additionally, the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 now governs contribution between concurrent wrongdoers in England and Wales and is relevant to the broader legal landscape surrounding this area. The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 is also relevant background. None of these developments overrule the legal principle established in Lister, but they substantially affect how it operates in practice. Students should ensure they consider the case in this wider context.
