Once was case that act of stealing took
servant outside course of his employment.
Therefore if servant stole goods his
employer was not vicariously liable.
No longer true, as this case shows.
Plaintiff sent mink stole to Mr B for
With plaintiff’s consent, Mr B sent it to defendants,
Servant of specialist cleaner stole it.
Court of Appeal held defendants liable.
Placed much reliance on duty owed to plaintiff
by defendants themselves as
sub-bailees of coat.
Alternative ground – servant’s tort
(conversion of coat) was wrongful mode of performing task entrusted to him by defendants
and was therefore committed in course of his employment.