Clearly DDL will want to argue that

Clearly DDL will want to argue that Twine applies, whereas in advising James, will look in the case of Rose v Plenty (1976) a milkman had been told by his employer not to permit passengers on his float, nor to let children help him deliver the milk. He disregarded these orders, and paid the claimant, who was 13, to help him. The claimant was injured while riding on the vehicle, as a result of the milkman’s negligent driving. The defendants were held vicariously liable, because the prohibition did not affect the job which the milkman had to do, only the way in which he should do it. He was doing his allocated job of delivering the milk, even though in a way that his employers disapproved of.

เห็นได้ชัดว่า DDL จะต้องการที่จะยืนยันว่าTwine applies. ในขณะที่ในการให้คำปรึกษาเจมส์จะมีลักษณะในกรณีของRose v Plenty (1976) a milkmanได้รับการบอกเล่าจากนายจ้างของเขาที่จะไม่อนุญาตให้ผู้โดยสารอยู่บนยานพาหนะหรือที่จะปล่อยให้เด็กช่วยให้เขาส่งมอบนม เขาไม่สนใจคำสั่งเหล่านี้และการชำระเงินโจทก์ซึ่งอายุ 13 ที่จะช่วยเขา โจทก์ได้รับบาดเจ็บในขณะที่ขี่บนยานพาหนะท​​ี่เป็นผลมาจากการขับรถประมาทของthe milkman จำเลยรับผิด vicariously เพราะห้ามไม่ได้ส่งผลกระทบต่องานที่ส่งนมต้องทำวิธีเดียวที่เขาควรจะทำมัน เขาได้รับการจัดสรรทำงานของเขาในการส่งมอบนมแม้ว่าในทางที่นายจ้างของเขาไม่เห็นด้วย

Results (English) 1:

Clearly DDL will want to argue that Twine applies, whereas in advising James, will look in the case of Rose v Plenty (1976) a milkman had been told by his employer not to permit passengers on his float, nor to let children help him deliver the milk. He disregarded these orders, and paid the claimant, who was 13, to help him. The claimant was injured while riding on the vehicle, as a result of the milkman's negligent driving. The defendants were held vicariously liable, because the prohibition did not affect the job which the milkman had to do, only the way in which he should do it. He was doing his allocated job of delivering the milk, even though in a way that his employers disapproved of.Apparently the DDL needed to confirm that the Twine applies. While in consulting, James looks at the case of Plenty v Rose (1976) a milkman has been spoken from his employer would not allow passengers on the vehicle, or to let the kids help him delivering milk. He is not interested in these orders and payments for the plaintiff, age 13 to help him. The plaintiff was injured while riding on a vehicle that resulted from the careless driving of the milkman. Defendant vicariously liable because the ban did not affect tasks that are the only way to make milk delivery, he should do it. He has been working on his contributions to delivering milk, although in a way that his employer did not agree.

Results (English) 2:

Clearly DDL will want to argue that Twine applies, whereas in advising James, will look in the case of Rose v Plenty (1976) a milkman had been told by his employer not to permit passengers on his float, nor to let children help him deliver. the milk. He disregarded these orders, and paid the claimant, who was 13, to help him. The claimant was injured while riding on the vehicle, as a result of the milkman's negligent driving. The defendants were held vicariously liable, because the prohibition. did not affect the job which the milkman had to do, only the way in which he should do it. He was doing his allocated job of delivering the milk, even though in a way that his employers disapproved of. Obviously, DDL will. would like to confirm that Twine applies. While in counseling, James will look at the case of Rose v Plenty (1976) a milkman had been told by his employer not to allow passengers on the vehicle. or to let the children help him deliver milk. He ignored these orders and to pay the plaintiff the age of 13 to help his accuser was injured while riding on a vehicle as a result of careless driving of the milkman defendant vicariously liable because of the ban. does not affect the milk should be the only way he could do it. He was allotted his work in delivering the milk, though in a way that his employer did not agree.

Results (English) 3:

Clearly DDL will want to argue that, Twine applies whereas in advising James will look, in the case of Rose V Plenty (1976). A milkman had been told by his employer not to permit passengers on his float nor to, let children help him deliver the. Milk. He disregarded, these orders and paid the claimant who was, 13 to help, him. The claimant was injured while riding. On, the vehicleAs a result of the milkman 's negligent driving. The defendants were held vicariously liable because the, prohibition did. Not affect the job which the milkman had to do only the, way in which he should do it. He was doing his allocated job of. Delivering, the milk even though in a way that his employers disapproved of.

.Obviously, DDL will need to confirm that Twine applies.While in counseling James will look in the case of Rose V Plenty (1976) a milkman have been told by his employer not to allow passengers on the vehicle, or to let the kids to help him deliver the milk.13 to help him. The plaintiff was injured while riding on the vehicles as a result of careless driving of the milkman defendant be covered vicariously because do not affect the milk delivery to do the only way he should do it.