Car accidents during work hours Mistakes made by the employees and their liability The general rule in tort liability is that the user (the employer) is WhatsApp: +971555570005
Car accidents during work hours
Mistakes made by the employees and their liability – Traffic accidents model –
The general rule in tort liability is that the user (the employer) is directly responsible for the mistakes of the employee (worker) Perhaps the justification for this rule is:
That the server must take into account others and arrange the conditions of the institution and thus falls upon the user’s choice and guidance and supervision.
There is a point of view that adopts this rule in favor of the injured person, because the employer is a user who is involved in this activity, and he moves among the people. He said that he is the beneficiary, and that he is harmed. He has to bear the inflow, and since he benefits from the activity of his user and earns profit. To pay the compensation and the user can not do so he must bear the liability and then return to the user and his demand for what he paid as a result of negligence or negligence
But this rule can not be adopted on the launch and in all cases and to apply there must be certain conditions are:
the user must be under the administration and supervision of the server directly, In the case of the driver a model must be under the supervision of the server and subject to direct directions for work, for example, if a server is directed to walk and conduct a certain road or contrary to the direct instructions of the server not to accompany other people with him or acted negligently and non-precaution in this case the user is responsible for the damage to violate directives Server. Also to clarify the issue of supervision, control and guidance, in the case of loaning the user driver in this example to perform the work of another person, the other person in this case is responsible for supervising it.
the question of the occurrence of the accident during working hours or because of work, the criterion in this matter is governed by whether the driver is a model driver to perform his work or to perform a personal benefit was driving the car in non-working time to perform a personal benefit or lead during the work but not for the work. The case shall be responsible for any accident arising therefrom.
Responsibility for the accident committed by the driver and whether directly responsible for him or his responsibility is a matter of fact in which the courts decide and decide whether the accident is within the scope of work and because of it or outside it or that the driver user example failed to comply with the directions of the server in the performance of his duty and decide After that, the responsibility is assigned in each case separately and we take to clarify this issue models of English case law
In the precedent of Beard vs. London General Omnibus (1900) 2Q.B.530
At the end of the journey, the bass driver went down for lunch. During his absence, al-Kamisari moved to put him in the required direction and cause the harm to the plaintiff. No evidence was provided that al-Kamsari had any powers in driving the bass in the absence of his driver. The court decided that the company is not responsible for that damage. Driving was not the type of business allowed to be performed.
In the precedent Limpus vs. London General Omnibus (1862) 1H @ C526
The driver ordered the driver to write in order to keep track of the others. In violation of this order, the applicant’s bass objected and a collision resulted in some damage. The defendants were convicted, despite the driver’s violation of the order because the driver did what he did but was not authorized and wrong, The defendants worked in their competition with others in the passenger transport process.
In the precedent of L.C.C V.Cattermoles (Garage) (1953) 1W.L.R.997
One of the garage workers was allowed to move the carriages manually from place to place inside the garage and was not allowed to drive outside the garage. The worker drove one of the vehicles and made a mistake by neglecting his employer on the grounds that the driver was still working within his job.
Twine v.Beans Express, Ltd (1946) 1W.L.R997
The driver prevented one of his drivers from carrying any unauthorized passenger and placed an advertisement in the vehicle. The driver carried one of the passengers who were not allowed to ride. The passenger knew this and was killed as a result of the driver’s negligence. The Court of Appeal ruled that the driver was not working within the scope of his work and that his server was not responsible.
The trend of precedents indicates that the order issued by the server to the person being employed determines the actions that fall within the authority of the user and those outside the user’s authority and exempts the server from liability if the user violates that order and performs outside the authority set by the server. The question of whether the prohibition relates to the job or the manner in which it is carried out is a matter of fact in which the court is adjudicated in light of the facts in each case.
In conclusion, the researcher finds that although the rule of law in many of the laws tend to load the liability of the server in case the user committed to do harm to others in this example – the driver who commits a traffic accident – but it gave the server the opportunity to prove the user’s mistakes and contravenes his job directives or The commission of the errors outside the scope of the work or because it is not related to work and therefore the user bears sole responsibility for the penalty of his violation. .
We also note that many of the laws have given the server the right to refer to the user and his demand for the loss caused by his action or negligence and lack of achievement, such a way in which the space for the server to deny the mistake of his part or ask the user compensation and return to the server compensation. Therefore, it can be said that the law, even if it starts to stand on the side of the victim of the traffic accident, is keen on the speed of obtaining the injured to compensate him, but he did not overlook the rights of the server.
Attorney / Mohamed Al Marzooqi
Mohamed Al Marzooqi advocates & Consultancy
Lawyer in Abu Dhabi, Dubai – UAE