员工犯错，雇主也要负责赔偿？Vicarious Liability of Employer on Employee’s Wrongful Act
- In Dyre and Wife v Munday @ anor [1895] 2 QB 742, CA Lord Esher MR ruled:
“The liability of the master does not rest merely on the question of authority, because the authority given is generally to do the master’s business rightly; but the law says that if, in the course of carrying out his employment, the servant commits an excess beyond the scope of his authority, the master is liable.”
- In Goh Choon Seng v Lee Kim Soo [1925] AC 550, apart from holding the same view as above, held that where a servant did some work for which he was appointed to do, but did in a manner not authorized, and would not have authorized had he known it, the master was nevertheless liable.
- In Keppel Bus Co. Ltd v Sa’ad bin Ahmad [1972] 2 MLJ 121, the Court of Appeal of Singapore found that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the conductor in hitting the respondent in a very high handed manner, was acting in the course of employment.
- In Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 ALL E.R 97 Lord Denning: “In considering whether a prohibited act was within the course of employment, it depends very much on the purpose for which it was done. If it is done for his employer’s business it is usually done in the course of his employment, even though it is a prohibited act….”
- In Roshairee bin Abd Wahab v Mejar Mustafa bin Omar & 2 Ors [1997] 2 AMR 2044
The plaintiff was assaulted by the first and second defendants while undergoing an orientation programme at a military camp in Sabah. At the material time, the plaintiff was under the charge of the first defendant, who was assigned as a duty officer to carry out the orientation programme. The second defendant was attached to the said regiment stationed in the said camp.
Although the first defendant’s acts of assault were unauthorized by the third defendant, they were carried out during the normal course of duty of the first defendant. Such being the case, his unauthorized acts have become so connected with his authorized acts that this court finds them to have become “modes-although improper modes of doing them.” For this, the third defendant (the Government of Malaysia–supplied) must be held vicariously liable for the unlawful actions of this defendant.”
==============================
*如果需要法律咨询或者聘请律师处理法律事务，你可以联系我们。
*浏览我们律师楼的法律文章: www.kuekong.com
*订阅我们的YouTube: http://bit.ly/lawnjustice
*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice
*Like 我们的“法律与你同行” FB Page: http://bit.ly/lawnjusticefbpage
*加入我们的网络论坛: www.queco.org
*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan. Klang Lawyer. 巴生(吧生)律师楼。
*我们的律师楼拥有超过15年的执业经验。我们处理民事纠纷，商业纠纷，追讨债务，遗产分配，遗嘱，离婚案，抚养权，领养小孩，拟商业合约，拟买卖合约，银行贷款，法律咨询，法律顾问，等法律事务。全马的案件，我们皆都处理。
*Wilson Kuek是“法律与你同行 Law & Justice”面子书群组的创办人。“法律与你同行”是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们为无数的平民百姓免费解除了各类的法律困扰。