Case Study Of Employers, Darling Insulation Co. Ltd.

SMITH V. STAGES
HOUSE OF LORDS
Lord Keith of Kinel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffith, Lord Goff of Chieveley and Lord Lowry.
Solicitors: Turner Kenneth Brown, agents for Jackson & Monk& Rowe, Middleborough (for the employers).
Sharpe Pritchard, agent for FA Greenwood & Co, Birmingham (for the plaintiff).
FACTS
The employers, Darling Insulation Co. Ltd., specialized in insulation of pipes, boilers and power stations. Mr. Machin & Mr. Stages worked for them as loggers at power stations; they had both worked for the employers in that capacity for many years. In August 1977, they were members of a group of about 20 loggers, employed by the employers, working at Drakelow power station at Burton-on Trent. There was another job to be done at
In order for the servant to perform a task assigned by the master, it is necessary for that person to travel to his workplace. The facts of this case state that Mr. Machin and Mr. Stages had to perform their duty in a power station that was located in another city. So if the employers expected their employees to work in the power station for a few days and return to the main workplace, then it is understood that it was necessary to travel to the power station and back to the main workplace. By virtue of the necessity of the servant to travel to his workplace, the servant was considered, by this court, to be in the course of employment while he was travelling. Therefore the masters could not escape his liability by claiming that the servant was merely travelling to his workplace and hence he is not
London and North Eastern Rly Co ,stating that certain employment requires an element of travelling, such as going from door to door to sell commodities, providing repair services etc. It is in these circumstances that an employee will be considered to act in the course of employment while travelling. The judge also took into account Nicolas v. Insurance Officer in which it was stated that there is not one factor, but many factors that determine the course of employment and the court has to look into all those factors and find an answer which points toward or against the employee acting in the course of employment. The judge also noted that modern day employers offer incentives to attract their employees by paying them during holidays; but this does not make the employer liable for the tort committed by the servant during the holiday. But this case cannot be regarded as an ordinary employment; it should rather be considered one in which the employee had to travel to his workplace under the orders of the employee and back to his permanent