Tort Claims Against Employers under Employment Law
Tort Claims Against Employers under Employment Law
1. Introduction
In employment law, tort claims against employers arise when an employee suffers harm due to the employer’s negligence or wrongful conduct outside or in addition to contractual breaches. Tort claims provide remedies for employees injured due to employer actions or omissions, supplementing statutory and contractual protections.
2. Common Tort Claims Against Employers
a) Negligence
The most frequent tort claim employees bring against employers is negligence. Employers owe a duty of care to provide a safe working environment, adequate training, supervision, and safe equipment.
Duty of Care: Employers must take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.
Breach: Failure to meet this standard.
Causation: Breach caused injury.
Damages: Employee suffered actual harm.
b) Vicarious Liability
Employers can be held liable for torts committed by employees acting within the scope of employment. This means even if the employer was not personally negligent, they may be responsible for employees’ wrongful acts.
Important for claims like assault, negligence, or defamation by employees.
c) Intentional Torts
Employees may claim against employers for intentional acts like assault, battery, or harassment if the employer authorized, ratified, or was negligent in preventing such conduct.
d) Defamation
If an employer publishes false statements harming an employee’s reputation, a defamation claim may arise.
3. Key Principles and Tests
a) Duty of Care and Breach
The employer’s duty involves ensuring:
Safe premises and equipment.
Proper training and supervision.
Reasonable safety policies.
b) Scope of Employment (for Vicarious Liability)
The tort must occur during the course of employment, linked to the employee’s duties.
Acts outside employment scope typically do not bind employer.
4. Important Case Law
a) Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22
Facts: The employer was held liable for sexual abuse by an employee caretaker at a boarding school.
Principle: Established a close connection test — employers can be liable for intentional torts if they are closely connected to the employee’s duties.
Significance: Expanded vicarious liability to intentional torts closely linked to employment.
b) Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English (1938) AC 57
Facts: Employer failed to provide safe working conditions, leading to injury.
Principle: Employers owe a non-delegable duty to provide a safe workplace.
Significance: Reinforced the employer’s duty to protect employees from harm.
c) Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board (1942) AC 509
Facts: An employee negligently caused an explosion during his duties.
Principle: Employer held vicariously liable for employee’s negligence within employment scope.
Significance: Illustrates vicarious liability for negligent acts during employment.
d) Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11
Facts: Employer held liable for assault by an employee at work.
Principle: Supreme Court held employer vicariously liable due to close connection of assault to employee’s duties.
Significance: Confirms employer responsibility for employee misconduct during work.
5. Defenses Employers May Use
Showing reasonable care and compliance with safety regulations.
Employee’s misconduct outside scope of employment.
Contributory negligence by the employee.
6. Summary
Employers can be liable in tort for harm caused by their negligence or their employees’ torts.
Negligence requires proof of duty, breach, causation, and damages.
Vicarious liability makes employers liable for employees’ torts within employment scope.
Courts have broadened vicarious liability to cover some intentional torts closely connected with employment duties.
Employers have a non-delegable duty to provide a safe working environment.
Tort claims provide employees with remedies beyond contractual claims, emphasizing employer accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments