Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd
Encyclopedia
Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd [1966] 1 QB 716 is an English tort law
case, establishing that sub-bailees are liable for the theft or negligence of their staff. Both Lord Denning and Lord Diplock rejected the idea that a contract
need exist for a relationship of bailor and bailee to be found. Accordingly, it established an authority in vicarious liability
, that employers are fully liable for the thefts - by employees - of goods that they have a duty to take care of.
Mrs Morris, the owner of a mink
stole, sent her coat to a furrier in London
, named Solomon Mark Beder. In a telephone exchange, Mr Beder stated that he did not do any cleaning himself, and that it was sub contracted to the defendant firm, CW Martins & Sons Ltd. They themselves were 'well-known', 'reputable' cleaners, and it was agreed that the fur coat would be sent to them. Upon collecting the fur coat, the defendant company did so under the terms of "The Fur Dressers and Dyers Conditions of Trading, 1955"; while it was in their possession, it was lost. Mrs Morris sued CW Martins & Sons Ltd, claiming that they had not exercised reasonable care in maintaining the coat; this argument was turned down by the first trial judge, who believed that the defendants took reasonable care to safeguard the coat. Additionally, he stated that the acts of the defendant's employee, in stealing the coat, were not committed in the course of his employment, and thus the employer could not be liable for them.
Denning argued that she could, stating that a duty of care
was owed by the sub-bailees to take reasonable care of the fur coat. This duty was non-delegable, in that they themselves were personally liable for the conversion
of their employee, in stealing the coat:
This judgment had several effects. Denning was explicit in overruling the previous authority of Cheshire v Bailey, and creating a general duty of sub-bailees to take due care in the possession of goods. In doing so, both Denning and Diplock LJ rejected the trial judge's emphasis on contract theory; it is clear there was no contract between Mrs Morris and the eventual cleaners. However, the relationship of bailor and bailee of a chattel can exist outside of a contract, it was the existence of this relationship that gave rise to a duty in Diplock's view.
English tort law
English tort law concerns civil wrongs, as distinguished from criminal wrongs, in the law of England and Wales. Some wrongs are the concern of the state, and so the police can enforce the law on the wrongdoers in court – in a criminal case...
case, establishing that sub-bailees are liable for the theft or negligence of their staff. Both Lord Denning and Lord Diplock rejected the idea that a contract
Contract
A contract is an agreement entered into by two parties or more with the intention of creating a legal obligation, which may have elements in writing. Contracts can be made orally. The remedy for breach of contract can be "damages" or compensation of money. In equity, the remedy can be specific...
need exist for a relationship of bailor and bailee to be found. Accordingly, it established an authority in vicarious liability
Vicarious liability
Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability...
, that employers are fully liable for the thefts - by employees - of goods that they have a duty to take care of.
Facts
| "(1) a wrongful act authorised by the master, or (2) a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master." |
| John William Salmond John William Salmond Sir John William Salmond, KC was a legal scholar, public servant and judge in New Zealand.-Biography:Salmond was born in North Shields, Northumberland, England, in 1862, the eldest son of William Salmond , a Presbyterian minister and professor... 's formulation of where an employer would be liable |
Mrs Morris, the owner of a mink
Mink
There are two living species referred to as "mink": the European Mink and the American Mink. The extinct Sea Mink is related to the American Mink, but was much larger. All three species are dark-colored, semi-aquatic, carnivorous mammals of the family Mustelidae, which also includes the weasels and...
stole, sent her coat to a furrier in London
London
London is the capital city of :England and the :United Kingdom, the largest metropolitan area in the United Kingdom, and the largest urban zone in the European Union by most measures. Located on the River Thames, London has been a major settlement for two millennia, its history going back to its...
, named Solomon Mark Beder. In a telephone exchange, Mr Beder stated that he did not do any cleaning himself, and that it was sub contracted to the defendant firm, CW Martins & Sons Ltd. They themselves were 'well-known', 'reputable' cleaners, and it was agreed that the fur coat would be sent to them. Upon collecting the fur coat, the defendant company did so under the terms of "The Fur Dressers and Dyers Conditions of Trading, 1955"; while it was in their possession, it was lost. Mrs Morris sued CW Martins & Sons Ltd, claiming that they had not exercised reasonable care in maintaining the coat; this argument was turned down by the first trial judge, who believed that the defendants took reasonable care to safeguard the coat. Additionally, he stated that the acts of the defendant's employee, in stealing the coat, were not committed in the course of his employment, and thus the employer could not be liable for them.
Judgment
Lord Denning established that the key question to creating liability was whether Mrs Morris could sue the cleaning firm for the theft of their employee:"Mr. Beder could clearly himself sue the cleaners. But can the plaintiff sue the cleaners direct for the misappropriation by their servant?"
Denning argued that she could, stating that a duty of care
Duty of care in English law
In English tort law, an individual may be owed a duty of care by another, to ensure that they do not suffer any unreasonable harm or loss. If such a duty is found to be breached, a legal liability is imposed upon the duty-ower, to compensate the victim for any losses they incur...
was owed by the sub-bailees to take reasonable care of the fur coat. This duty was non-delegable, in that they themselves were personally liable for the conversion
Conversion
-Economy and Finance:* Currency conversion or exchange rate* Conversion , one of the options strategies* Economic conversion-Law:* Conversion , conversion by taking a chattel out of the possession of another with the intent of exercising a permanent or temporary dominion over it, despite the...
of their employee, in stealing the coat:
This judgment had several effects. Denning was explicit in overruling the previous authority of Cheshire v Bailey, and creating a general duty of sub-bailees to take due care in the possession of goods. In doing so, both Denning and Diplock LJ rejected the trial judge's emphasis on contract theory; it is clear there was no contract between Mrs Morris and the eventual cleaners. However, the relationship of bailor and bailee of a chattel can exist outside of a contract, it was the existence of this relationship that gave rise to a duty in Diplock's view.