Employer’s Liability and Vicarious Liability
March 20, 2023
1 Employer’s Liability & Negligence
• There is an established duty of care between an employer and its employ-
ees.
• And this established duty includes the duty for an employer to take rea-
sonable steps to:
• (a) Competent staff;
• (b) Adequate material (plant, equipment and machinery);
• (c) A proper system of work and supervision; and,
• (d) A safe place of work.
• The first three of these duties were established in Wilsons & Clyde Coal
Co Ltd v English [1937] 3 All ER 628.
• The last of these duties outlined in Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] 2 All ER
449.
• Before we consider these duties individually, it is worth noting a feature
that is common to all of them.
• That is that these duties are non-delegable.
• The duty owed by employer to employee is personal to the employer.
• An employer cannot escape liability for the negligent performance of its
duty by saying that it delegated its performance to someone else whom it
reasonably believed to be competent to perform it.
• Indeed, if an employer does delegate a duty to someone else, the employer
still has a duty to see that reasonable care has been taken.
• Notice that although the employer will be liable to the employee, the
employer may have a contractual claim against the person to whom they
delegated the duty to whereby the can recoup the compensation that they
have had to pay out.
1
, • The reason for the fact that the employers’ duties are non-delegable is
that, if the duties were delegable, an injured employee would be faced
with the potentially difficult task of identifying the actual tortfeasor and
suing them.
• Notice that other non-delegable duties do exist, so this is not something
that is unique to employers and their employees (see Woodland v Essex
CC [2013] UKSC 66 ).
2 Competent Staff
• As stated, an employer owes an employee a duty to provide the employee
with competent fellow workers.
• However, as established in Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd [1957]
2 QB 348, the duty to provide competent staff will not arise merely from
the fact that a worker is incompetent.
• Rather, the duty to provide competent staff arises where an employer
knows, or ought to know, about the risk a particular worker is posing to
fellow workers.
• This was confirmed in Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
[2002] 1 WLR 160.
• Note that, in Waters, it was held that the risk being posed by the worker
could be of psychological as well as physical harm.
• Thus, this duty to provide competent staff is important in respect of bul-
lying in the workplace.
3 Adequate Plant and Equipment
• This duty is relevant in two situations:
• (a) Where an employer does provide plant and/or equipment to their
employees but it is inadequate in some way; and,
• (b) Where an employer does not in fact supply all the plant and equipment
needed for the job.
• The employer’s duty to provide adequate plant and equipment is a de-
manding one; for they must provide all necessary equipment and maintain
it to a safe standard.
• Now, one reason equipment may be inadequate is because of it is inherently
defective.
2
March 20, 2023
1 Employer’s Liability & Negligence
• There is an established duty of care between an employer and its employ-
ees.
• And this established duty includes the duty for an employer to take rea-
sonable steps to:
• (a) Competent staff;
• (b) Adequate material (plant, equipment and machinery);
• (c) A proper system of work and supervision; and,
• (d) A safe place of work.
• The first three of these duties were established in Wilsons & Clyde Coal
Co Ltd v English [1937] 3 All ER 628.
• The last of these duties outlined in Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] 2 All ER
449.
• Before we consider these duties individually, it is worth noting a feature
that is common to all of them.
• That is that these duties are non-delegable.
• The duty owed by employer to employee is personal to the employer.
• An employer cannot escape liability for the negligent performance of its
duty by saying that it delegated its performance to someone else whom it
reasonably believed to be competent to perform it.
• Indeed, if an employer does delegate a duty to someone else, the employer
still has a duty to see that reasonable care has been taken.
• Notice that although the employer will be liable to the employee, the
employer may have a contractual claim against the person to whom they
delegated the duty to whereby the can recoup the compensation that they
have had to pay out.
1
, • The reason for the fact that the employers’ duties are non-delegable is
that, if the duties were delegable, an injured employee would be faced
with the potentially difficult task of identifying the actual tortfeasor and
suing them.
• Notice that other non-delegable duties do exist, so this is not something
that is unique to employers and their employees (see Woodland v Essex
CC [2013] UKSC 66 ).
2 Competent Staff
• As stated, an employer owes an employee a duty to provide the employee
with competent fellow workers.
• However, as established in Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd [1957]
2 QB 348, the duty to provide competent staff will not arise merely from
the fact that a worker is incompetent.
• Rather, the duty to provide competent staff arises where an employer
knows, or ought to know, about the risk a particular worker is posing to
fellow workers.
• This was confirmed in Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
[2002] 1 WLR 160.
• Note that, in Waters, it was held that the risk being posed by the worker
could be of psychological as well as physical harm.
• Thus, this duty to provide competent staff is important in respect of bul-
lying in the workplace.
3 Adequate Plant and Equipment
• This duty is relevant in two situations:
• (a) Where an employer does provide plant and/or equipment to their
employees but it is inadequate in some way; and,
• (b) Where an employer does not in fact supply all the plant and equipment
needed for the job.
• The employer’s duty to provide adequate plant and equipment is a de-
manding one; for they must provide all necessary equipment and maintain
it to a safe standard.
• Now, one reason equipment may be inadequate is because of it is inherently
defective.
2
