Vicarious liability help

It's been a good few years since I studied tort law so I may be quite outdated... but I do like a bit of research

Are you told of what grounds her claim was unsuccessful in the lower court, or just that it was unsuccessful?

What about the recent'ish case in the Court of Appeal (2012) of Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd?

I believe it was held that a drunk employee had undertaken an 'independent venture of his own.' His actions were motivated by his own reasons and were separate and distinct from his employment, thus he was not working in the course of employment. And, consequently, there was no vicarious liability?

What case in particular do you think are against you?

Thanks for having a go!
Firstly I am just told in the brief that the judge was happy to accept that the driver was negligent but he denied that the company could be held vicariously liable for the harm caused by the driver.

I will check Weddall v Barchester Healthcare as that sounds quite relevant.

There seem to be quite a few, especially built around the idea that an authorised act but in an unauthorised way is still vicarious liability. cases like Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (bus driver rammed another bus racing for customers when he was told not to race) , Rose v Plenty (1976) (a milk man hired a boy to help him on his rounds, I.E. something he was authorised to do but had been told not to aquire help) and Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport (1942) where a guy was smoking while unloading fuel from his truck which he had been told not to do, and he blew up a warehouse with the match.

Trouble is it seems im going to have to get rather creative with some sparse help haha

This crossed my head when I was thinking of Weddall actually. Weddall was doing an unauthorised act in an unauthorised way which, if I was mooting against you, I'd point this out and distinguish it very quickly.