Keep up to date with Salmons Solicitors using our news section for the latest information.
Court defines extent of liability for aggressive or negligent employees (March 2014)
Where the dividing line should fall in cases of vicarious liability has often troubled the courts. Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine which states that an employer is liable for the negligence of the employee. But there can be cases where no employer would have envisaged the employee acting in a violent or abusive manner. Should the employer be liable in such cases?
In the late 1990's case of T v North Yorkshire CC, a headmaster's sexual abuse of a child on a school trip was decided not to be within the scope of the headmaster's contract of employment and therefore the local authority employer was not liable. For many years the approach of the courts was to only hold the employer liable for injuries to the Claimant in two sets of circumstances:-
(1) if the employer had wrongfully authorised the act in which the claimant was injured - this would be akin to an instruction along the lines of "If a member of the public is rude to you at work, thump them"
(2) if the injuiry was sustained through an unauthorised mode
of carrying out an authorised act - this would be akin to an instruction " You, Mr Bouncer, are free to restrain physically any person from entering this nighclub if they are drunk", in circumstances where Mr Bouncer then goes on to use excessive force in order to do so.
In the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd in 2001, a warden of a care home for teenagers sexually abused the children in his care. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. The children then brought claims for personal injuries against the warden's employer. The court decided the employer was liable, contrary to the position in T v North Yorks two years earlier. The warden was employed to care for the children and provide a nurturing environment and the warden's abuse was so closely connected with the reason for his very employment that the employer was liable.
There have now been two recent cases in this area.
In Mohamud v Morrisons Supermarkets (2014) an employee working in a petrol station kiosk assaulted a customer, badly. The court said that there must be a sufficiently close connection between the employment and the wrongful assault so that it is fair to hold the employer liable. In this case the employer escaped liability.
In Cox v Ministry of Justice (2014) a prison inmate was "employed" in the kitchen and dropped a bag of food produce on the catering manager, causing her injuries. The inmate alleged this was not deliberate! She brought a compensation claim against the Government department which ran the prison. The court decided that although the inmate was not actually employed his position was akin to employment since he worked under the direction of the prison in order to help run the prison kitchen. The court decided that the negligence of the inmate was so close to the employer that the employer was liable even though technically the inmate was not an employee.
The starting point for this type of case is to consider a Canadian decision which has been praised for its clear analysis of the law. The case is Bazley v Curry (1999).
Latest News Articles
THE OFFICE WILL BE CLOSED FROM 12PM ON 1ST MAY 2018 FOR TRAINING ON THE NEW EU GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION 2016 WHICH COMES INTO FORCE LATER THIS MONTH Read More
Has the tide has finally turned in social services failure to remove cases? Read More
Stephen Brookes, Assessor of the Personal Injury Panel of the Law Society, looks at the recent decision in Crawley v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Read More
The Government is still deluding itself in thinking that denial of access to justice will cause insurance premiums to fall. Read the full report here - Read More
Latest Government attempts to deny access to the courts are responded to by the Solicitors' profession. Read More
Association of Personal Injury Lawyers calls for a complete ban on nuisance calls about accident claims
APIL have issued recently a press release to try and persuade the Government to put an outright ban on intimidating cold callers pestering members of the public to make accident claims for accidents which they have never had. Read More
The Government's plans to prevent irritating claims being brought against their friends in the insurance industry continue to attract criticism. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews two cycling injury cases making the legal headlines recently Read More
Stephen Brookes looks at two personal injury cases on either side of the fence; in the former case the claimant won but in the latter case the claimant failed. Read More
If ever there was a minefield in the application of applicable rules it is in the area of discrimination law. Stephen Brookes reviews the recent case of Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ( 2015) Read More
Since April 2015 the Court has had power to strike out a claim for personal injury compensation if a claimant has been fundamentally dishonest - but what does this mean? Read More
Supreme Court decision changes the meaning of an unlawful penalty charge in contract law - Beavis v Parking Eye reviewed Read More
Working time might now include travel to and from the first and the last job for employees who are based at home. Read More
Following the decision of Salmons Solicitors to withdraw from all legal aid work upon the grounds of unsustainable remuneration levels, there is increasing pressure for criminal defence legal practices. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews the latest attempts by the Coalition Government to make the legal claims process unworkable. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews two recent personal injury claims where the claimants both failed. Read More
There can be few more fun pursuits than taking your off roader into difficult and challenging off road terrain, but before you do so, a cautionary word about a recent change of insurance law, writes Stephen Brookes. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews the recent case of Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton on the inclusion of overtime into holiday pay calculations. Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews the decision of the Supreme Court in Coventry and Lawrence (2014) Read More
High Court Judge rules Government's Motor Insurers Compensation Scheme for uninsured drivers unlawful. The case is reviewed by our personal injury specialist Stephen Brookes Read More
Stephen Brookes reviews two recent cases dealing with the question of when an employer can be liable for injuries inflicted by a member of the workforce on another person Read More
Farah Gilani reviews a January 2014 case involving a prosecution over an unguarded piece of machinery. Read More