Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:37:13 -0500

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Dubai Aluminium v. Salaam

njm33@cam.ac.uk wrote:

I agree with Andrew Dickinson that there is nothing in Lord Nicholls' speech in Dubai Aluminium that tends to suggest that he thought Morris v. C W Martin was not a vicarious liability case at all but was rather a case where the defendants were held personally liable to the plaintiff for the loss of her fur coat on the ground that their employee had put them in breach of the non-delegable duty of care that they owed the plaintiff to ensure the safety of her coat.

Perhaps I am mis-reading, but after discussing the two cases, and only the two cases of Morris and Lloyd in para. 27-28, Lord Nicholls states at para. 29:

I can put aside both those types of case [Morris and Lloyd] because there is no question in the present appeal of the Amhurst firm having undertaken any responsibility to Dubai Aluminium. Nor is there any question of Dubai Aluminium having dealt with Mr Amhurst in reliance on any apparent authority he may have had. There is no question of the firm having 'held out' Mr Amhurst to Dubai Aluminium as having authority to do what he is alleged to have done. Nor need I enter upon the debate whether either of these two types of case is strictly to be regarded as vicarious liability at all.

Does this not tend to suggest that he thought the cases were justifiable on the basis of personal rather than vicarious liability?

Jason

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index   ~  Next Message >>>>>