Turberville v Stampe

Turberville v Stampe (1697) 91 ER 1072 is an English tort law case concerning vicarious liability, also known as the respondeat superior doctrine.

Facts

The employee or "servant" of the defendant negligently began a fire in a field, which spread to and damaged a neighbour's house. The master argued he was not responsible because he was not personally at fault. Moreover, he had directed the employee the proper method of lighting fires, orders which were not followed.

Judgment

Lord Chief Justice Holt gave judgment.

Significance

Holt carried this broad vicarious liability into the commercial setting, noting that ‘the master at his peril ought to take care what servant he employs; and it is more reasonable, that [the master] should suffer for the cheats of his servant than strangers’ (ibid., 91 ER 797)

See also

More from Holt

• Jones v Hart 2 Salk 441
• Middleton v Fowler 1 Salk 282
• Hern v Nichols 1 Salk 289

On liability for strangers and acts of God emanating from land

• Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880
• Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645
• Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] 1 AC 241
• Leakey v National Trust [1980] QB 485

On vicarious liability

• Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215
• Hall (Inspector of Taxes) v Lorimer [1994] 1 All ER 250, freelance vision mixer not an employee for tax purposes, ‘never been better put than by Cooke J’ in Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173
• Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung [1990] 2 AC 374, 384, had own tools, paid by piece and did not price the job. ‘The applicant ran no risk whatever save that of being unable to find employment which is, of course, a risk faced by casual employees who move from one job to another…’

Notes

Further reading

• O Kahn-Freund, ‘Servants and Independent-Contractors’ (1951) 14 Modern Law Review 504, control test unrealistic today
• JW Neyers, ‘A Theory of Vicarious Liability’ (2005) 43 Alberta Law Review 287