However, in order to prove vicarious liability, we must demonstrate that his negligence was committed in the course of his employment and not as a “activity on his part”. own ". Under Salmond's test, Arthur's wrongful act should be "closely linked" to that which his employer authorized. To put this into perspective, let us consider the facts of the Polish case. The accused was employed to guard bags of sugar and mistakenly hit a schoolboy when he thought the boy was stealing. He was not allowed to use unreasonable force to protect property, nevertheless he was there to guard it. In other words, he had done what he was supposed to do, but in a bad way. It was held that this would be sufficient to prove vicarious liability. The facts of this case are similar to those of Arthur. The driver was probably also employed to transport some goods. In doing so, he had exceeded the speed limit, essentially doing as he was ordered.