Poland v Parr & Sons [1927] 1 KB 236
Employer’s vicarious liability for personal injury caused by the acts of an employee.
Facts
A contractor’s employee was, in the course of his employment, following close behind his employer’s waggon carrying sugar bags. Seeing a boy with a hand on one of the bags, the employee believed the boy to be stealing sugar and hit him. This caused the boy to fall and the waggon to run over his foot, leading to the loss of his leg. The boy had not, in fact, been stealing the sugar although the employee had believed so.
Issues
The question arose as to whether the employee’s actions were authorised by the employer, imputing the employer’s liability for the injuries sustained by the boy.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held that the employer was liable as it was an impliedly authorised act conducted during the employee’s course of employment and as a result of the employee acting within the scope of his duty to protect the employer. Although the employer held that the employee was acting without their direct nor indirect authority, the Court held that the employee had an implied authority to act to protect his employer’s property if he has reasonable ground to believe that it was in danger. The Court stipulated that the employee’s actions were entirely in the interests of protecting the employer, although it was an excessive means of doing so. Accordingly, the employee was held to be impliedly authorised by the employer and the employer was held liable for the resultant personal injuries.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Poland v Parr & Sons [1927] 1 KB 236 is a well-established authority on vicarious liability and implied authority, and continues to be cited in that context. The broader legal framework governing vicarious liability has, however, developed significantly since 1927. In particular, the Supreme Court in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 replaced the older ‘Salmond test’ with a ‘close connection’ test for determining whether an employee’s wrongful act falls within the course of employment. This was further refined in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56 and Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11. More recently, the Supreme Court revisited and narrowed the ‘close connection’ test in Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 and WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12. Readers should be aware that while Poland v Parr remains a useful illustration of implied authority and employer liability, the modern approach to vicarious liability is now governed primarily by these later Supreme Court authorities rather than by the older implied authorisation framework described in this article.
