Storey v Ashton [1869] LR 4 QB 476
Tort law – Master and servant – Negligent driving
Facts
The defendant in this case, was a wine merchant who, in the course of employment, sent his clerk and his car man off with a horse and cart to make a delivery of wine and collect and return the empty bottles. During their journey from doing this, rather than completing this task set by the employer, the car man was told by the clerk to drive in the opposite direction to visit his brother-in-law as it was past 3.00pm on a Saturday and outside of business hours. Following this change of direction, the car man ran over the plaintiff.
Issue
The issue in this case was whether the defendant could be said to be at fault for the actions of his employees at a time that they were not directly acting on behalf of him, but still using his equipment. It was an important to draw a line between negligence arising out of a master’s instruction and when the employee could be said to be operating on the basis of his own act.
Held
The defendant was not liable in this instance as the court considered that the car man was operating a new and independent journey from the one he was instructed to do. The court surmised that as it was after business hours, the incident that harmed the plaintiff could be considered to have taken place outside the course of his employment. With this being said, the court still emphasised the strict nature of an employee acting under an employers instruction.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately describes the facts and outcome of Storey v Ashton (1869) LR 4 QB 476, a foundational Victorian authority on vicarious liability and the “frolic of his own” doctrine. The legal principles outlined remain good law and the case continues to be cited in modern vicarious liability analysis. However, readers should be aware that the broader law of vicarious liability has developed significantly since 1869. In particular, the Supreme Court decisions 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 vicarious liability, and more recently Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 and Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12 have further clarified its scope, particularly regarding independent contractors and the “close connection” test. The article’s summary of the frolic doctrine as applied in Storey v Ashton itself remains accurate, but students should consult modern authorities for the current state of vicarious liability law generally.
