Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Parallelewelten.net.
If you would like to view samples of the work produced by our academic writers please click here.
Gregory v Piper  9 B & C 591
Trespass – Vicarious Liability
Gregory (G) owned a pub called the Rising Sun with a stable-yard in the back which could be accessed by a back gate through Old King’s Yard. Piper (P) owned the property surrounding Old King’s Yard and disputed G’s right to pass through the yard to his stable. P employed a labourer (S) to lay down a quantity of rubbish, consisting of bricks, mortar, stones, and dirt, near G’s stable-yard, in order to obstruct the way. Part of this rubbish rolled against G’s wall and gates, and G refused to remove it. G raised an action of trespass against G.
The issue in question was whether a master could be liable for the trespass which occurred as a result of instructions the master gave to another in his employment. P claimed he could not be held liable because he had instructed S not to let the rubbish touch the wall, and the fact that the rubbish resulted in a trespass of G’s property was due to negligence on S’s part.
A master is liable in trespass for any act done by his servant in the course of executing his orders with ordinary care. P was therefore liable for trespass as it was a probable and foreseeable result of the S‟s act which P had instructed S to do. The trespass was a necessary or natural consequence of the act ordered to be done by P, therefore making P as the employer liable.
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.