Certainly, there is a very fine div

Certainly, there is a very fine division between this case and Twine. The majority of the Court of Appeal pointed to the fact that in Twine the lift was not given for a purpose which would benefit the employer, but in Rose the boy was helping with deliveries, and therefore, furthering the employer’s business. However, it is likely that the court was influenced by the fact that compensation for the child could only be secured by making the employer’s insurance available to meet the claim.

แน่นอนว่ามีเป็นส่วนที่ดีมากระหว่างกรณีนี้และ Twine ส่วนใหญ่ของศาลอุทธรณ์ชี้ไปที่ความเป็นจริงที่ว่าในกรณีของ Twine ให้ลิฟท์โดยไม่ได้รับโดยมีวัตถุประสงค์เพื่อที่จะได้รับประโยชน์นายจ้าง แต่ในโรสเด็กได้รับการให้ความช่วยเหลือกับการส่งมอบและดังนั้นต่อไปธุรกิจของนายจ้าง แต่ก็เป็นไปได้ว่าศาลได้รับอิทธิพลจากความจริงที่ว่าค่าชดเชยสำหรับลูกคนเดียวอาจจะมีความปลอดภัยโดยการทำประกันของนายจ้างที่มีอยู่เพื่อตอบสนองการเรียกร้อง

Results (English) 1:

Certainly, there is a very fine division between this case and Twine. The majority of the Court of Appeal pointed to the fact that in Twine the lift was not given for a purpose which would benefit the employer, but in Rose the boy was helping with deliveries, and therefore, furthering the employer's business. However, it is likely that the court was influenced by the fact that compensation for the child could only be secured by making the employer's insurance available to meet the claim.Of course, there is a vast difference between God's part in this case, the Court of appeal the majority of Twine and point to the fact that, in the case of Twine, lift without getting the objective is to benefit the employer, but rose was sadek, assistance with delivery, and thus further the business of the employer, but it is possible that the Court was influenced by the fact that compensation for a single child may be secured by the employer's insurance coverage that is available to respond to the call.

Results (English) 2:

Certainly, there is a very fine division between this case and Twine. The majority of the Court of Appeal pointed to the fact that in Twine the lift was not given for a purpose which would benefit the employer, but in Rose the boy was helping with. deliveries, and therefore, furthering the employer's business. However, it is likely that the court was influenced by the fact that compensation for the child could only be secured by making the employer's insurance available to meet the claim. Certainly, there is a good part. Twine between this case and the Court of Appeals pointed to the fact that in the case of Twine to the elevator without a purpose that would benefit the employer. But Rose's been helping with the delivery, and therefore the employer's business. But it is possible that the court was influenced by the fact that the compensation for the children alone could be secured by making insurance available to meet employers' demands.

Results (English) 3:

Certainly there is, a very fine division between this case and Twine. The majority of the Court of Appeal pointed to the. Fact that in Twine the lift was not given for a purpose which would benefit, the employer but in Rose the boy was helping. With deliveries and, the, therefore furthering employer 's, However business.It is likely that the court was influenced by the fact that compensation for the child could only be secured by making. The employer 's insurance available to meet the claim.

.Of course, there is a great between this case and Twine most of the court of appeals, pointing to the fact that in the case of Twine lift without the objective to benefit the employer.However, it is possible that the court was influenced by the fact that the compensation for you alone may be secured by the employer's insurance available to meet the claim.