Case Update – Employer not liable for injury caused by practical joke in the workplace (Court of Appeal)
In the case of Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited, [2022] EWCA Civ 7 (12 January 2022) the Court of Appeal considered whether an employer was responsible for a serious injury sustained by a third-party contractor, caused by a practical joke of one of its employees.
Background
Tarmac engaged Mr Chell at a quarry site. Mr Chell had reported tension between external contractors and employees of Tarmac to his supervisor. Subsequently, an employee of Tarmac played a prank on Mr Chell. He brought explosive pellets into work and hit them with a hammer proximate to Mr Chell’s ear. The explosion resulted in Mr Chell suffering a perforated eardrum, hearing loss and tinnitus. Mr Chell unsuccessfully claimed damages for personal injury from Tarmac in the County Court, arguing that it was vicariously liable for its employee’s actions, and directly liable for breaching its own duty of care and failing to provide a safe working environment. The High Court upheld the County Court decision. Mr Chell appealed to the Court of Appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed that there was not a sufficiently close connection between the act which caused the injury and the employee’s work to make it fair, just and reasonable to impose vicarious liability. Among other things, the real cause of Mr Chell’s injuries was the explosive pellet, which was not Tarmac’s equipment and not used in the employee’s work. It could not be said that Tarmac authorised what the employee did, nor was his act an unlawful mode of doing something authorised by Tarmac. The wrongful acts were not done in the course of employment. Regarding breach of duty of care, there was no reasonably foreseeable risk of injury arising from the prank and the reported tension did not suggest potential violence. Even if such a risk of injury had been established, it would be unreasonable and unrealistic to expect an employer to have in place a system to ensure employees refrained from horseplay. Employees were expected to carry out their tasks using reasonable skill and care, and by implication to refrain from horseplay. Common sense decreed that horseplay was inappropriate at a working site.
Comment
Vicarious liability is when the employer is held legally responsible for the acts/omissions of its staff is causing damage or injury. There have been a number of cases recently on vicarious liability and it is clear that the courts are taking a firm line on what liability an employer has for the actions of its employees/contractors. It is not enough to say that they were given the opportunity to do so because of their employment. Where those actions are committed during the course of a claimant’s employment but it is not reasonable for that kind of action to have been taken into account in a risk assessment then the claim will likely fail. Another example can be found in the case of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets 2016. In this case, Mr Mohamud visited a petrol station owned by Morrisons where he was racially abused and assaulted by an employee of the Company. At first glance it might not be obvious why the Court of Appeal found against Mr Chell, when it was decided in the Mohamud case that Morrisons were liable for assault caused by its employee on a customer. The difference between the two cases is that, Mr Mohamud assaulted a customer during the course of his normal duties: namely, serving a customer. Whereas in the Chell case, Mr Chell was assaulted during the course of a practical joke, outside of the normal activities of the wrongdoer in question. The Judgment serves to re-enforce the general principle that an employer will only be vicariously liable for the actions of their employee when the wrongful conduct is closely connected with acts the employee was authorised to do. Anton Bilinski has many years’ experience representing Claimants in relation to various claims for personal injury, including those against employers. Anton can also advise whether an employer may be vicarious liable. Working with Jennifer Carpenter, Partner, employment law advice can be given about these circumstances. For employers it is always a good idea to have a clause in an employment contract making it clear that the employee will not commit unlawful acts or engage in any inappropriate behaviour whether meant in jest or otherwise. Whether you are an employer or employee contact us for advice at [email protected]
