Storey v Ashton – Case Summary

March 26, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s):

Introduction to Storey v Ashton

The legal doctrine of vicarious liability holds employers accountable for the wrongful acts of their employees committed “in the course of employment.” The 1869 case of Storey v Ashton [1869] LR 4 QB 476 remains a landmark decision that significantly shaped how courts determine the scope of employment and employer liability in negligence cases. This case study delves into the facts, legal issues, arguments presented, and the court’s judgment, followed by a discussion of its impact and ongoing relevance.

Facts of the Case:

Mr. Ashton, a wine merchant, employed a driver to deliver wine and collect empty bottles using a horse and cart. One day, after completing his assigned deliveries, the driver deviated from his authorized route to visit a friend in the hospital. During this detour, he negligently caused an accident, injuring Mr. Storey. The crux of the case centered on whether Mr. Ashton, the employer, could be held vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence during his unauthorized deviation.

Legal Issue:

The central legal issue in Storey v Ashton was whether the driver’s act of negligence fell within the scope of his employment. This hinged on the concept of vicarious liability, which imposes liability on an employer for the torts (civil wrongs) committed by an employee while acting in the course of employment.

Arguments Presented:

  • Plaintiff (Mr. Storey): Mr. Storey’s argument focused on the fact that the driver was still using his employer’s horse and cart at the time of the accident. He contended that the employer should be held responsible for the employee’s actions regardless of the detour, as the accident involved the employer’s property.
  • Defendant (Mr. Ashton): The defendant argued that the driver was not acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. They emphasized that the detour was a personal errand wholly unrelated to his job duties. Since the negligence occurred outside the authorized course of employment, Mr. Ashton should not be held vicariously liable.


The court ruled in favor of Mr. Ashton, the employer. The judge, Chief Justice Cockburn, delivered a critical judgment that established a key distinction between authorized work activities and unauthorized personal detours. He reasoned that the driver’s deviation from the designated route constituted a “frolic of his own,” essentially a personal act outside the scope of his employment. Since the accident happened during this unauthorized deviation, the employer was not vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence.

Discussion and Impact:

The Storey v Ashton case had a profound impact on the development of the law of vicarious liability. It established the principle that an employer is only liable for an employee’s actions if they occur “in the course of employment.” This case set a precedent for distinguishing between authorized work activities and unauthorized personal detours when determining employer liability. The judgment introduced the concept of “frolic of his own” as a significant factor in evaluating the scope of employment.


Storey v Ashton [1869] LR 4 QB 476 stands as a pivotal case in establishing the scope of vicarious liability in negligence claims. It serves as a reminder of the importance of distinguishing authorized work activities from unauthorized personal detours. While the concept of “frolic of his own” remains relevant, ongoing developments in the workplace demand a flexible application of these principles to ensure fair outcomes in contemporary legal disputes concerning employer liability.

Why Choose Us:

Our law writing help is characterized by personalized attention, timely delivery, and exceptional quality. We understand the challenges students face in legal studies and strive to alleviate their academic burdens by providing comprehensive assistance that empowers them to excel in their coursework.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'Storey v Ashton – Case Summary' (, September 2012 ) <> accessed 17 April 2024
My, Law, Tutor. (September 2012 ). Storey v Ashton – Case Summary. Retrieved from
"Storey v Ashton – Case Summary." 9 2012. All Answers Ltd. 04 2024 <>.
"Storey v Ashton – Case Summary." MyLawTutor., September 2012. Web. 17 April 2024. <>.
MyLawTutor. September 2012. Storey v Ashton – Case Summary. [online]. Available from: [Accessed 17 April 2024].
MyLawTutor. Storey v Ashton – Case Summary [Internet]. September 2012. [Accessed 17 April 2024]; Available from:
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url= |title=Storey v Ashton – Case Summary | |date=September 2012 |accessdate=17 April 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Dick Bentley v Harold Smith

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to Dick Bentley v Harold Smith The world of contracts can be a complex one, especially when it comes to the interpretation of statements made during negotiations. Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] stands as a significant case in English contract law, offering valuable insights into the distinction between a […]

Performance Cars v Abraham

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to Performance Cars v Abraham Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham (1962) stands as a landmark case in English tort law, specifically regarding the concept of causation in negligence claims. This case study delves into the factual background, the legal issue at stake, the court’s decision and reasoning, and the lasting impact of the case […]

R v Hennessy – 1989

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to R v Hennessy – 1989 The criminal justice system grapples with complex issues when a defendant’s actions seem involuntary due to a medical condition. R v Hennessy (1989) stands as a significant case in English law, delving into the boundaries of the defense of automatism in the context of diabetic hypoglycemia. This case […]

go to top