Court of Appeal rules on employers liability for employee violence
Whether employers are liable when employees get violent depends on the facts, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd; Wallbank v Wallbank Fox Designs Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 25, [2012] All ER (D) 01 (Feb) concerned two cases where an employee assaulted their manager in the workplace.
The court looked at the connection between the violent act and what the employee had been asked to do. It reached a different decision in each case.
In Weddall, the employee refused on the phone to work a night shift, and then turned up at work and assaulted his manager. The employer was not held vicariously liable.
In Wallbank, the employee was asked to do something while at work and responded by throwing his manager onto a table. The employer was vicariously liable.
Michael Pether, partner at Berrymans Lace Mawer, says: “The decision highlights that outcomes in employee violence situations are highly fact-dependent and involve a rather subjective ‘value judgment’ by judges. That leads to situations like the current one where cases which look very similar on their facts can go either way.
“Earlier decisions emphasise that the courts will pay close attention to whether the nature of the employment increases the risk of violence. Fist-fights in rugby matches are a good example of this.”
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
