It has been a long established principle of law that an employer who is not personally at fault is made legally answerable for the fault of his employees. This is an important principle because it means that those who suffer harm at the hands of a company’s employee may be able to bring the claim against the wrongdoer’s employer and obtain damages from its insurer, rather than pursuing the wrongdoer himself, who may have no money and have no insurance.

The above is reasonably understood when it refers to a wrongful act authorised by the employer or an act of negligence by the employee. The test is commonly expressed as “was the act complained of carried out in the course of the wrongdoer’s employment?”.

However, it also extends to a wrongful act which has not been authorised or carried out in performance of duties and of particular interest are those cases where the employee injures someone by way of a deliberate violent action.

The precedent-setting case was Lister v Helsey Hall which involved the sexual abuse of children by the warden of a school, in which it was held that the school was liable for those actions as “the school was responsible for the care and welfare of the boys. It entrusted that responsibility to the warden.”

Our top stories

The cases that the courts have had to consider regarding liability of employers for assault committed by employees fall into three broad categories. The first are claims against the police, the second private security staff (including “bouncers”) and thirdly those cases where the Employees are specifically not permitted by their employers to use force.

The case of Bettison involved a police officer ,who was off duty and who punched a youth inside a marked police van which he had borrowed without permission in order to help his girlfriend move home. At trial, the judge held that the police officer was engaged in a frolic of his own and the assault had nothing to do with the police. The Court of Appeal disagreed and held that the police were liable for the assault as the officer was apparently exercising his authority as a police officer.

Contrast this with a recent case of Mohamud v Morrisons in which Mr M was attacked at a Morrisons’ petrol station by Mr K, one of the Supermarket’s employees. Although the court held it was part of Mr K’s job to interact with the public, the court found that the attack had been carried out for reasons of his own and was not related to his work duties and the employers were therefore not liable.

The courts generally take a fairly broad approach when deciding whether a particular act occurred in the course of an individual’s employment so as to make the employer liable. A lot of the cases involve those where there is a need to keep order and discipline and several have involved claims against nightclubs or security firms for assaults carried out by bouncers. If a nightclub doorman uses excessive force when restraining a customer and causes injury, his employer is likely to be liable, even if it can show that it trained the doorman to be more restrained in the use of force.

In the case of Gravil, a rugby club was held liable for injuries caused by one of its players punching an opposing team player even though the club was non-profit making and the players were playing for fun and the altercation took place during a pause in the game.

 

  • Do you want alerts delivered straight to your phone via our WhatsApp service? Text NEWS or SPORT or NEWS AND SPORT, depending on which services you want, and your full name to 07767 417704. Save our number into your phone’s contacts as Oxford Mail WhatsApp and ensure you have WhatsApp installed.