employers liability Flashcards
- Employers’ Non-Delegable Duty of Care
Employers must ensure the safety of their employees at work.
This is a non-delegable duty, meaning they can’t pass this responsibility to others (like independent contractors).
Employers are responsible for:
Providing safe equipment
Hiring competent staff
Ensuring a safe system of work
Case Example:
Connolly v. Dundalk UDC [1990]: Worker injured by chlorine gas. The employer tried to blame a third-party contractor but was found liable. Employers can’t avoid responsibility by hiring independent contractors.
- Standard of Care (Reasonable Care)
Employers must provide reasonable care (not perfection) to protect their employees.
Reasonable care means doing what a prudent employer would do in the same situation.
Key Principle:
The employer doesn’t have to guarantee safety in all situations, but they must take reasonable steps to prevent harm.
Safety, Health, and Welfare at Work Act 2005: Requires employers to ensure the safety, health, and welfare of employees as far as reasonably practicable.
Case Example:
Rogers v. Bus Átha Cliath (2000): The bus company took steps to improve safety but wasn’t liable when a bus driver was injured during a robbery because they had done what was reasonable given the circumstances.
Case Example:
O’Brien v. Bus Éireann [2023]: The employer failed to instruct employees to always use safety screens, so the employer was liable when an employee was injured.
- Known Vulnerabilities
Employers have to consider employees’ special circumstances. If an employee is more vulnerable (e.g., has a disability), the employer must take extra care to protect them.
Case Example:
Paris v. Stepney Borough Council [1951]: A man who was blind in one eye was not provided with the appropriate protective gear, and the court found the employer negligent because they knew of his vulnerability.
- Abnormally Hazardous Work
The nature of the work (dangerous or risky) affects the employer’s duty. Employers must take extra precautions in hazardous jobs.
Case Example:
Walsh v. Securicor (1993): The employer was found negligent because the route used for transporting cash was risky and hadn’t been changed in years.
- Provision of Safe Equipment
Employers must make sure the equipment provided is safe for use.
Case Examples:
Deegan v. Langan [1966]: Employer liable for providing defective nails that caused injury.
English v. Anglo-Irish Meat Co. (1988): Employer was liable for not providing updated protective gear for employees working with dangerous knives.
- provision of competent staff.
Employers must ensure employees are competent and properly trained to do their jobs.
Case Example:
Phelan v. Coillte Teoranta [1993]: Employer was liable for injuries caused by a worker who repaired machinery incompetently.
- Provision of a Safe System of Work
Employers must ensure that work practices and systems are safe, and they may need to take preventive steps to ensure safety before harm happens (like providing training, safety instructions, and hazard warnings).
Case Example:
Douglas v. Michael Guiney Ltd [2019]: Employer was liable when a worker was injured by an intoxicated customer. The employer hadn’t properly planned for such situations, like aggressive behavior from customers.
- Kirby v. South Eastern Health Board (1993)
Case: Nurse injured her back while lifting a patient using a procedure that involved stretching and twisting.
Key Point: The employer (hospital) was liable because they knew about the risks of the procedure and didn’t change it or provide safer alternatives.
Lesson: Employers must identify and address risks in the workplace to prevent injuries.
- Firth v. South Eastern Health Board (1994)
Case: Ward attendant injured while lifting a patient. She had been trained when she started but never received updated training on patient lifting.
Key Point: The employer was negligent for failing to provide updated training and exposed the employee to unnecessary risk.
Lesson: Employers must keep training programs up to date to prevent injuries.
- Gerard Watters v. Dunnes Stores (2015)
Case: Employee given an electric shock by a machine that wasn’t defective but lacked safety updates.
Key Point: Employers must regularly review equipment and install safer alternatives when possible, even if not strictly necessary.
Lesson: Failing to update safety measures, when affordable, is negligent.
- Wright v. Abbey Equine Limited (2022)
Case: Worker kicked in the face by a horse because they weren’t properly informed about a new procedure for calming horses.
Key Point: The employer was liable because they failed to communicate the new safety procedure to employees.
Lesson: Employers must properly inform employees about new safety systems.
- Moorehouse v. Governor of
Wheatfield Prison (2021)
Case: Employee lost three fingers by using a machine without a safety guard. He knew it was removed but still used the machine.
Key Point: The court reduced damages for contributory negligence because the employee ignored safety.
Lesson: Employees also have a responsibility to follow safety procedures.
- Safe System of Work: Psychiatric Injury
Key Case: Hatton v. Sutherland [2002] (UK)
Case: Teacher suffered stress-related illness due to excessive work hours. He told his employer about the stress, but they didn’t take action.
Key Points:
Employers must be aware of the signs of stress in employees and act to reduce it.
Foreseeability: If an employer knows or should know that stress is harming an employee, they must take steps to prevent further harm.
Factors to consider: workload, absenteeism, signs of stress, and whether the employer did enough to help.
If the employer has reasonable steps (e.g., counseling) in place, they may not be liable.
Lesson: Employers are responsible for preventing work-related stress that causes psychiatric harm if they know or should know it’s an issue.
- Barber v. Somerset County Council (2004)
Case: Teacher became stressed due to workload and suffered a breakdown. He told his employer about the stress, but they didn’t take action.
Key Point: Employer should have acted as soon as they knew the teacher was suffering from stress. They could have adjusted his workload or shown more support.
Lesson: Employers must act promptly when an employee shows signs of stress, even if they don’t explicitly complain. Stress may result from both work and personal life, so it’s important to monitor and help employees.
- Lord Scott’s Dissent in Barber
Case: Lord Scott disagreed with the majority opinion in Barber. He argued that employees are adults who choose their jobs and should manage their stress independently.
Key Point: Employers are not always responsible for stress; employees should inform their employer and seek help if needed.
Lesson: Stress is part of many jobs, and employees must take responsibility for managing their stress by informing their employer and seeking help.
- McGrath v. Trintech Technologies (2004)
Case: Employee suffered a mental breakdown while working in Uruguay. Employer was unaware of the employee’s stress.
Key Point: The employer wasn’t liable because the employee didn’t inform them about stress and had no underlying psychiatric condition.
Lesson: If an employee doesn’t communicate stress or health issues, it can be hard for an employer to take action. Employers should assess stress based on what is reasonably visible
- Ruffley v. St. Anne’s School (2017)
Case: Employee claimed bullying but failed to prove it was part of an unsafe work system.
Key Point: There is no specific tort for bullying, but if bullying affects an employee’s health, it could be linked to a failure in the system of work.
Lesson: Employers must ensure a safe working environment, including protecting employees from bullying.
- Workplace Bullying & Harassment Leading to Psychiatric Injury
Case: Quigley v. Complex Tooling and Moulding (2005)
Case: Employee suffered stress due to workplace bullying. Employer failed to stop it after repeated complaints.
Key Point: The employer was liable for not addressing bullying, and the court used the Industrial Relations Act 1990 definition of bullying.
Lesson: Employers must have procedures in place to deal with bullying and harassment and take immediate action if reported.
- McCarthy v. ISS Ireland Ltd (2018)
Case: Cleaning supervisor suffered from anxiety and PTSD after aggressive behavior from employees she supervised. Employer didn’t address complaints.
Key Point: The employer was liable because they didn’t have procedures in place to handle hostility.
Lesson: Employers must take action when informed about bullying or aggression, especially if it leads to stress or harm.
- Hurley v. An Post (2017)
Case: Postal worker suffered PTSD after being bullied at work. Employer didn’t properly address the bullying or the situation.
Key Point: The employer failed to follow its own procedures and did nothing to prevent continued bullying, which led to the worker’s stress.
Lesson: Employers must adhere to their own policies and take immediate action when employees report workplace bullying or harassment.
Summary of Employer’s Duty
Employers have a duty of care to protect employees from injury at work, including from stress, bullying, and harassment.
This duty is non-delegable (they can’t pass it off), but it’s not strict liability—the employer is only liable for negligence (failure to act when they should have).
Workplace stress, bullying, and harassment can lead to psychiatric injury, and employers must take reasonable steps to prevent these.
Bullying and harassment are not independent torts but can be part of an unsafe work system. Employers must ensure a safe environment and act when informed about risks.
