31:
121:
The reason why the employers are liable in such cases is not because they can control the way in which the work is done - they often have not sufficient knowledge to do so - but because they employ the staff and have chosen them for the task and have in their hands the ultimate sanction for good
102:
Mr
Cassidy went to hospital for a routine operation on his hand, but came away with stiff fingers because of the negligence of one of the doctors. He attempted to sue the Ministry of Health in its capacity as employer. The Ministry argued it could not be held responsible and had no vicarious
117:
The Court of Appeal held that the doctor was indeed a servant of the hospital and the
Ministry was vicariously liable, because the doctor was integrated into the health organisation. Denning LJ said,
561:
283:
269:
556:
243:
458:
391:
349:
309:
172:
297:
155:
405:
187:
377:
321:
576:
433:
363:
571:
257:
30:
201:
566:
105:
215:
126:
He also noted, that where a patient selects the doctor, then the doctor will not be employed by a hospital.
148:
69:
419:
192:
205:
91:
473:
229:
141:
492:
83:
367:
409:
395:
437:
423:
353:
339:
335:
177:
550:
463:
447:
87:
468:
381:
247:
233:
219:
325:
109:
where it had been suggested that a surgeon was not the 'servant' of his employer.
133:
137:
493:"Cassidy v Ministry of Health; CA 1951 - swarb.co.uk"
63:
53:
45:
37:
23:
285:Market Invest Ltd v Minister for Social Security
119:
149:
8:
271:Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v SS for Pensions
156:
142:
134:
29:
20:
562:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
244:Clyde & Co LLP v Bates van Winkelhof
484:
16:English tort law and UK labour law case
459:Contract of employment in English law
7:
392:Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd
350:Lane v Shire Roofing Co (Oxford) Ltd
310:Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner
173:Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Wurttenberg
14:
406:Muscat v Cable & Wireless Plc
188:Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz
122:conduct, the power of dismissal.
378:Carmichael v National Power plc
322:Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung
557:United Kingdom labour case law
298:O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc
1:
434:Muschett v H M Prison Service
364:McMeechan v SS for Employment
103:liability, relying partly on
90:case concerning the scope of
258:Cassidy v Minister of Health
79:Cassidy v Ministry of Health
24:Cassidy v Ministry of Health
593:
202:Employment Rights Act 1996
164:Workplace protection cases
444:
430:
416:
402:
388:
374:
360:
346:
332:
318:
306:
294:
280:
266:
254:
240:
226:
212:
199:
184:
169:
68:
58:
28:
216:Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
106:Collins v Hertfordshire
49:2 KB 343, 1 All ER 574
124:
70:Contract of employment
577:English tort case law
420:James v Greenwich LBC
572:1951 in British law
92:vicarious liability
474:German labour law
454:
453:
230:Jivraj v Hashwani
75:
74:
584:
567:1951 in case law
533:
530:
524:
521:
515:
509:
508:
506:
504:
489:
286:
272:
158:
151:
144:
135:
84:English tort law
33:
21:
592:
591:
587:
586:
585:
583:
582:
581:
547:
546:
541:
536:
531:
527:
522:
518:
512:
502:
500:
491:
490:
486:
482:
455:
450:
440:
426:
412:
398:
384:
370:
356:
342:
328:
314:
302:
290:
284:
276:
270:
262:
250:
236:
222:
208:
195:
180:
165:
162:
132:
115:
100:
82:2 KB 343 is an
41:Court of Appeal
17:
12:
11:
5:
590:
588:
580:
579:
574:
569:
564:
559:
549:
548:
545:
544:
540:
537:
535:
534:
525:
516:
510:
483:
481:
478:
477:
476:
471:
466:
461:
452:
451:
445:
442:
441:
431:
428:
427:
417:
414:
413:
403:
400:
399:
389:
386:
385:
375:
372:
371:
361:
358:
357:
347:
344:
343:
336:Hall v Lorimer
333:
330:
329:
319:
316:
315:
307:
304:
303:
295:
292:
291:
281:
278:
277:
267:
264:
263:
255:
252:
251:
241:
238:
237:
227:
224:
223:
213:
210:
209:
200:
197:
196:
185:
182:
181:
170:
167:
166:
163:
161:
160:
153:
146:
138:
131:
128:
114:
111:
99:
96:
73:
72:
66:
65:
61:
60:
56:
55:
51:
50:
47:
43:
42:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
589:
578:
575:
573:
570:
568:
565:
563:
560:
558:
555:
554:
552:
543:
542:
538:
532:2 KB 343, 362
529:
526:
523:2 KB 343, 361
520:
517:
514:
511:
499:. 7 July 2015
498:
494:
488:
485:
479:
475:
472:
470:
467:
465:
464:EU labour law
462:
460:
457:
456:
449:
448:UK labour law
443:
439:
436:
435:
429:
425:
422:
421:
415:
411:
408:
407:
401:
397:
394:
393:
387:
383:
380:
379:
373:
369:
368:EWCA Civ 1166
366:
365:
359:
355:
352:
351:
345:
341:
338:
337:
331:
327:
324:
323:
317:
312:
311:
305:
300:
299:
293:
288:
287:
279:
274:
273:
265:
260:
259:
253:
249:
246:
245:
239:
235:
232:
231:
225:
221:
218:
217:
211:
207:
203:
198:
194:
190:
189:
183:
179:
175:
174:
168:
159:
154:
152:
147:
145:
140:
139:
136:
129:
127:
123:
118:
112:
110:
108:
107:
97:
95:
93:
89:
88:UK labour law
85:
81:
80:
71:
67:
62:
57:
54:Case opinions
52:
48:
44:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
528:
519:
513:
501:. Retrieved
496:
487:
469:US labor law
432:
418:
410:EWCA Civ 220
404:
396:EWCA Civ 217
390:
376:
362:
348:
334:
320:
308:
296:
282:
268:
256:
242:
228:
214:
186:
171:
125:
120:
116:
104:
101:
78:
77:
76:
18:
497:swarb.co.uk
438:EWCA Civ 25
424:EWCA Civ 35
354:EWCA Civ 37
340:EWCA Civ 25
551:Categories
539:References
503:2 December
59:Denning LJ
289:2 QB 173
275:2 QB 497
261:2 KB 343
193:C-397/01
130:See also
113:Judgment
64:Keywords
46:Citation
382:UKHL 47
313:ICR 612
301:ICR 730
248:UKSC 32
234:UKSC 40
220:UKSC 41
191:(2005)
178:C-66/85
176:(1986)
326:UKPC 1
480:Notes
98:Facts
38:Court
505:2016
446:see
86:and
206:230
553::
495:.
204:s
94:.
507:.
157:e
150:t
143:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
