However, to prove vicarious liability, we must demonstrate that his negligence was committed in the course of his employment and not as a “prank of his own”. Under the Salmond test, the tortious act committed by Arthur should be “closely connected” to that authorized by his employer. To put this into perspective, let's consider the facts of the Polonia case. The accused was employed as a sugar bag guard and, by mistake, hit a student when he thought he was stealing. He was not authorized to use unreasonable force to protect property, yet he was there to guard it. In other words, he had done what he was charged to do, but wrongly. It was held that this would be sufficient to demonstrate vicarious liability. The facts of this case are similar to those of Arthur. The driver was also allegedly employed to transport some goods. In doing so he had exceeded the speed limit, essentially doing what he had been ordered to do