In Twine v Bean’s Express Ltd (1946

In Twine v Bean’s Express Ltd (1946), the defendants’ employee gave the claimant’s husband a lift in a van, and as a result of the employee’s negligence, he was killed. The driver had been told not to give lifts to anyone who was not within a group of authorized passengers, and there was a notice on the side of the vehicle stating who could be carried. The deceased was not among them. The defendants were held not to be vicariously liable, because the driver was doing an unauthorized Act and was therefore outside the course of his employment.

In Twine v Bean’s Express Ltd (1946), พนักงานจำเลยให้ลิฟท์ในรถตู้กับสามีของโจทก์และเป็นผลมาจากความประมาทของพนักงานเขาถูกฆ่าตาย คนขับรถได้รับการบอกว่าจะไม่ให้ลิฟท์ให้กับทุกคนที่ไม่ได้อยู่ในกลุ่มผู้โดยสารที่ได้รับอนุญาตและมีการแจ้งให้ทราบที่ด้านข้างของรถ ผู้ตายไม่ได้ในหมู่พวกเขา จำเลยถูกจัดขึ้นที่จะไม่ต้องรับผิด vicariously เพราะคนขับรถมีการกระทำที่ไม่ได้รับอนุญาตและพระราชบัญญัติจึงนอกหลักสูตรของการจ้างงานของเขา

Results (English) 1:

In Twine v Bean's Express Ltd (1946), the defendants' employee gave the claimant's husband a lift in a van, and as a result of the employee's negligence, he was killed. The driver had been told not to give lifts to anyone who was not within a group of authorized passengers, and there was a notice on the side of the vehicle stating who could be carried. The deceased was not among them. The defendants were held not to be vicariously liable, because the driver was doing an unauthorized Act and was therefore outside the course of his employment.In Twine v Bean's Express Ltd (1946), Employees have had to lift in the van with her husband of the plaintiff and, as a result of the negligence of his employees were killed. The driver has been told not to lift, with everyone who does not belong to the Group of passengers who are authorized and have a notice on the side of the vehicle. Deceased was not among them. The defendant was held not to be liable vicariously, because the driver is an action that is not allowed, and therefore act outside the course of his employment.

Results (English) 2:

In Twine v Bean's Express Ltd (1946), the defendants' employee gave the claimant's husband a lift in a van, and as a result of the employee's negligence, he was killed. The driver had been told not to give lifts to anyone who was. not within a group of authorized passengers, and there was a notice on the side of the vehicle stating who could be carried. The deceased was not among them. The defendants were held not to be vicariously liable, because the driver was doing an unauthorized Act. and was therefore the course of his Outside Employment. In Twine v Bean's Express Ltd (the 1946th), employees accused to lift in a van with the plaintiff and her husband as a result of the negligence of his staff were killed. The driver was told not to give lifts to people who are not in the group of passengers allowed and there is a notice on the side of the car. The deceased was not among them. The defendant was held to be vicariously liable because the driver does not have to act outside the law is not approved and the course of his employment.

Results (English) 3:

In Twine V Bean 's Express Ltd (1946), the defendants' employee gave the claimant' s husband a lift in a van and as, a result. Of the employee ', s negligence he was killed. The driver had been told not to give lifts to anyone who was not within a group. Of authorized passengers and there, was a notice on the side of the vehicle stating who could be carried. The deceased was. Not among them.The defendants were held not to be, vicariously liable because the driver was doing an unauthorized Act and was therefore. Outside the course of his employment.

In Twine V Bean 's Express Ltd (1946),The lift van employees in with the husband of the plaintiff, and as a result of negligence of employees, he was killed.The victim is not among them. The defendant was held to be liable, because the driver had vicariously actions not allowed and the RA law and extracurricular of his employment.