COMMON LAW METHOD Read the following extracts and then answer the questions below: Ftose v Plenty and another COURT OF APPEAL. CIVIL DIVISION LORD DENNING MR. LAWTON AI'tID SCARMAN LJJJI. T JIJL't'Ir 19TH LORD DENNING ME. The first defendant. Mr Christopher Plenty. was a milk roundsman employed at Bristol by the second defendants. (looperative Retail Services Ltd (\"Cooperative Services']. He started working for them at Easter 19H}. There were notices up at the depot making it quite clear that the roundsmen were not allowed to take children on the vehicles. One notice said: 'Children and young persons must not in any circumstances be employed by you in the performance of your duties.' Both employers and trade union did their utmost to stop it. No doubt Mr Plenty knew it was not allowed. But in spite of all these warnings. the practice still persisted. Boys used to hang about the depot waiting to be taken on: and some of the roundsmen used to take them. Soon after Mr Plenty started work as a milk roundsman a boy. the plaintiff. Leslie Rose. who was just over 13. went up to Mr Plenty and asked if he could help him. Mr Plenty agreed to let him do it. The boy described his part in these words: 'I would jump out of the milk oat. grab the milkr whatever had to go into the house, collect the money if there was any there and bring the bottles back.' That is what he did. Mr Plenty paid the boy Es for the weekends and As for the weekdays. Whilst young Leslie Rose was going round some houses. Mr Plenty mold go to others. On 21 June 19TH. unfortunately. there was an accident. After going to one house. Leslie Rose jumped on the milk float. He sat there with one foot dangling down so as to be able to jump off quickly. But atthat time Mr Plenty. I am afraid. drove caielessly and negligently. He went too close to the kerb. As the milk float went round the corner. the wheel caught Leslie's leg. He tried to get his leg away. but he was dragged out of the milk oat. His foot was broken with a compound fracture; but it has mended. So it was not very serious. Afterwaids. by his father as his next friend. he brought an action for damages against Mr Plenty and against his employers. Co- operative Services. The judge found that Mr Plenty was negligent. but he felt that young Leslie was old enough to bear some part of the blame himself. He assessed the responsibility for the accident at T5 per cent to Mr Plenty and 25 per cent to the boy. He assessed the total damages at 300. He gave judgment against Mr Plenty for three-quarters of it. EEOCI. But he exempted the employers from any liability. He held that Mr Plentywas acting outside the scope of his employment and that the boywas a trespasser on the oat. The boy. through his father. now appeals to this court. He says the employers. [tooperative Services. are liable for the acts of their milk roundsman. LB2D3 I52 IE The Lll'lhnersityof Law Linited 2520-2021