From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1974] 1 WLR 1082 (PC). The claimant bus passenger got into an argument with the bus conductor, in the course of which the conductor struck the claimant in the eye with his ticket punch, and blinded him. The claimant sued the bus company in respect of its vicarious liability for the conductor's wrongdoing. The question arose whether the conductor could have been acting in the course of his employment; after all, the company would hardly have authorised the conductor to inflict violence on passengers. There is a strong presumption in favour vicarious liability where the employee commits a tort in the course of his normal duties, even where he is carrying out those duties in a forbidden way (see limpus v london general omnibus (1862)). The limit on this principle seems to lie at the point where the employee's actions are completely outside the duties of his employment. It was suggest that, even in this case, the employer could have been liable if the conductor had been attempting to maintain order in the bus, this being part of his duty. However, since there was no evidence of disorder, the conductor's actions were completely outside the scope of his employement, and the employer was held not to be liable.

Influenced following cases

• Lord Wright
• England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
• Neutral Citation Number: [2000] EWCA Civ 5568

The second case is closer to our case, though I have to say, on reflection, not very close to it; that is Keppel Bus Company v Sa'ad bin Ahmad [1974] 1 WLR 1082 in the Privy Council. In that case a passenger travelling on a bus had an altercation with the conductor, apparently in respect of the conductor's language towards another passenger. That altercation was apparently prevented by the intervention of other passengers. The person in respect of whom the row had originally started then got off the bus . The conductor began collecting his fares and, whilst he was doing that, he directed an offensive remark to the passenger with whom he had had the original argument. The passenger asked the conductor not to use abusive language towards him, whereupon there and then the conductor hit the passenger with his ticket collecting machine, inflicting serious injury. The trial judge found the conductor was acting in the course of his duty in maintaining order among the passengers and the passenger was interfering with him in the performance of his duty. On that basis he held that the act of assault had been in the course of the conductor's employment. The Privy Council did not agree. It is noticeable, as my Lord pointed out in the course of argument, that the Board differed from the analysis of the facts in terms course of employment that had been adopted by the trial judge and by the Court of Appeal in Singapore. The Privy Council said this at 1085B: