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), จำเลยเป็นพนักงานให้ลิฟท์ในรถตู้กับสามีของโจทก์และเป็นผลมาจากความประมาทของพนักงาน, เขาถูกฆ่าตาย 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), The defendant's employees, including the plaintiff's husband in the van, and as a result of the negligence of an employee, he is 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 Outside the course of his Employment. In Twine v Bean's Express Ltd (the 1946th), the defendant's employees to lift in a van with the husband of the plaintiff as a result of the negligence of an employee, killed his driver. The car has been 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 defendant as a lift in the van with the husband of plaintiff and resulting from negligence, employeesHe was killed, the driver has been saying you can't lift to anyone who is not in the authorized by substances and is informed at the side of the car. The victim is not among them. The defendant was held not to be liable.Because the driver has actions not allowed and the law is extracurricular of employment of them.