law
...mpleted. Geoff was also operating within the scope of his employer, as he was ‘on duty’ and acting within the course of work directed to him from Bert. A similar example can be seen in the case Smith v Stages [19891] AC 928. A and B were employed as power station laggers. They were asked by their employer to work at a power station in Wales. It was agreed that they would be paid whilst travelling to and from the job. On the way back from Wales whilst travelling in B's car they had an accident. A, the passenger was injured due to the negligence of B, the driver. At the time of the accident they were ‘on duty’ and therefore the employer was liable for B's negligence. In the case of Steve, the company ‘Sweepaway Rubbish Pty Ltd’ are not liable. As Steve is an independent contractor, the employer can only be found liable for the acts instructed to be done, but not for the manner of their performance. This is illustrated in the case Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 154 CLR 672. The sawmiller hired sniggers to move felled trees to a loading area, and truckers to carry them to the mill. The sniggers and truckers were not servants, in the customary sense, being paid on a piece basis, controlling their own hours of work, their mode of operation, etc, although an employee of the mill had general supervision over operations. An employee of the mill was injured when a log was being loaded onto a truck. The High Court held that the sawmilling company was not vicariously liable for any tort on behalf of the snigger or trucker...