inconsistencies in applicaitonm#

• Courts have been inconsistent when deciding what counts as “in the course of employment”:

  • In Hilton v Thomas Burton (1961), a worker died while taking an unauthorised break. His widow couldn’t claim, as he was on a “frolic of his own”.
  • Yet in Smith v Stages (1989), the employee was travelling for work and vicarious liability was imposed. The difference hinged on why the travel occurred – a very fine distinction.
• Cases like Twine v Beans Express (1946) (no liability) and Rose v Plenty (1976) (liability imposed) also show contradictions when employees disobey orders. Courts sometimes favour the claimant, sometimes the employer, creating uncertainty.