Hashim Yeop A Sani SCJ

(delivering the Judgment of the Court): We dismissed the appeal on January 21, 1985 and now give our reasons.

The following facts were admitted in the court below. On March 15, 1979 the respondent, Muniandy s/o Appasamy who was an employee of the appellant, hitched a ride in a JKR lorry no. WL 6677 driven by one Tan Loke, a JKR driver and also an employee of the appellant. The lorry was travelling from Taiping to Kampar. The lorry belongs to the appellant.

The respondent was at the material time working in Taiping and was going home to Kampar to hand over his pay to his wife. On the way the lorry met with an accident and the respondent was injured. Tan Loke, the driver, admitted liability. Tan Loke also admitted that he did not object to the respondent taking a lift on the lorry and he did not tell the respondent that he could not ride on the lorry. Tan Loke was on duty at the material time and was driving the lorry in the course of his employment.

From the record it would seem clear that the only issue before the trial judge was whether the appellant was vicariously liable.

Twine v Bean's Express Ltd [1946] 1 All ER 202 lays down the rule that the duty of a