Psychiatric Illness Resulting from the Negligence of the Employers Action - Essay Example

CRITICAL EVALUATION, IN RELATION TO THE COMMON LAW DUTY OF CARE, THE LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS FOR PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS SUFFERED BY EMPLOYEES AND ARISINGAS THE RESULT OF EMPLOYEES BEING MADE TO WORK UNDER STRESSFUL CONDITIONS Name: Course: Date: Introduction The contracts of employment require that an employer provides reasonable care to the employee. Therefore, from the law of Tort perspective under negligence, an employer owes his/her employee a duty of care under common law (Cihon and Castagnera, 2008). According to Hodgson and Lewthwaite (2007), psychiatric illness resulting from the negligence of the employer’s action amounts to liability to the employer. For instance, in Walker v. Northumberland C.C. (1995), the court held that the employers’ duty of care in providing safe working environments to employees, extends to an extent where it is reasonably foreseeable that the employee can suffer psychiatric illness because of the nature and quantity of work of the work that is undertaken by the employee. Moreover, in Inter Corporation (UK) Limited v Daw (2007), the court decided that the provision of counselling services to an employee by the employer concerning the work-related consequences failed and the court went ahead to award the employee £134,000 citing that under the common law of negligence, the employer owes an employee a legal duty of care by providing safe working occupational stress free environments. Conversely, in Barber v Somerset CC the House of Lords held that employers ought to be proactive and take a step if a worker is suffering from psychiatric injury because of stress lieu of adopting a “wait & see position” (Barber v Somerset C.C., 2004). Therefore, they concluded that an employer ought to do something to help a worker suffering from the workplace stress. In other similar cases held in 2002, the Appeal Court held that for workers to get compensation for suffering from workplace stress condition, they must inform the employer of their working conditions to enable them realize the existence of such a situation for them to remedy the situation because under the common law, for a duty of care to arise the situation resulting to injury (psychiatric damage) of the worker must have been reasonably foreseeable to the employer. Thus, for psychiatric damage liability to arise so that an employee can claim for damages, it must be proved that the employer breached his legal duty of care regardless of the existence of reasonable foreseeable events or factors causing the psychiatric damage (Munkman, 1990). Moreover, in the late centuries the House of Lords created volenti non fit injuria doctrine, which required worker to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the employer was liable for damages to them because of breaching his legal of care. Therefore, this law disregarded claims levelled against employers by employees requiring them to prove their claims beyond reasonable doubt. However, this law during the time affected a vast majority of manufacturing firms that claimed imposing such liability, impeded the industry’s growth. Therefore, the courts recognized this factor and held that a worker who suffers from psychiatric illness resulting from the work environment must prove his claims beyond reasonable doubt for him/her to receive compensation for damages (Munkman, 1990). Thus, to cement this, the Lord Reed in Rorris stated that, there must be proved psychiatric illness, recognized by a psychiatrist as psychiatric disorders as opposed to mere depression/anxiety for a defendant to claim damages. Moreover, she went ahead saying that the claimant should have never suffered from a psychiatric disorder before (Butler, 2002). Therefore, for an employee to receive compensation he/she must prove her claims to enable him/her claim damages for primary liability or vicarious liability (Cohen and McKendrick, 2005). Thus, the defendant must prove: Existence of a legal duty of care For an employee to claim damages from an employer, the employee must demonstrate that the employer owed him/her reasonable duty of care. For instance, in Walker v. Northumberland C.C. (1995), the court held that the employers’ duty of care in providing safe working environments to employees, extends to an extent where it is reasonably foreseeable that the employee can suffer psychiatric illness because of the nature and quantity of work of the work that is undertaken by the employee (Selwyn, 1990). Foreseeability A duty of care can only arise if the events or factors causing psychiatric illness as a result of stress are foreseeable to the employer. Therefore, an employee will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt the psychiatric illness resulted from factors or events, which were known or within the control of the employer. Thus, factors such as anxiety and anger cannot be enough proved for an ability to prove the existence of liability on the employer because these are common human emotions Lord Reed in Rorris. Breach of duty After examining the foreseeability of the psychiatric injury arising from events, which are known or within an employer’s control or not, the next thing is to examine if the employer breached his legal duty of care for the foreseeable events to cause psychiatric injury to the employee. Thus, to determine the breach, the court will need to examine the history of the employee’s complaints regarding the working environment possibility of causing stress, which would cause psychiatric injury to the injury. Ultimately, the court will then determine if the employer took action to remedy the situation for the employee to receive compensation. For instance if the court determines that the employer ignored the complaints made by the employee and consequently the employee suffered psychiatric injury, the court will be justified to award liquidated damages to the employee because the employer was negligent and hence breached his legal duty of care (Harpwood, 2009). Causation The court will determine if the employer’s breach of his/her legal duty of care resulted to the employee suffering psychiatric injury. If the court determines so, then it will award the employee liquidated damages for the loss suffered s result of the employer’s breach of his/her legal duty of care (Stranks, 2006). However, to claim vicarious liability, the employee must prove that: Duty of Reasonable Care An employer’s liability can only arise if the employee proves that the employer acted negligently despite the existence of foreseeable events or factors being present resulting to the employee suffering psychiatric injury (Giliker, 2010). Deliberate Actions If the events or factors that have caused the employee suffering psychiatric injury were intentionally caused or triggered by the employer, the employee would need not prove foreseeability (Cornell.edu, n.d). Therefore, the actions of the employer will be deemed malice and were intended to hurt the employee. Thus, in this case the employee will be awarded compensations without having to prove the negligence of the employer causing him psychiatric injury. Conclusion Ultimately, there is the need for employers taking the necessary measures to provide safe and stress-free environments for their employees to work to avoid legal issues arising from psychiatric injuries suffered by the employees at the workplace. Moreover, they need to be in a position to prove that they have instituted the necessary measures to remedy the situations, events or factors contributing to workplace stress. Bibliography Barber v Somerset C.C., 2004. Available at http://www.lawteacher.net/employment-law/essays/liability-for-stress-at-work-employment-law-essay.php [Accessed 1 Nov. 2014]. Butler, D. A., 2002. Damages for Psychiatric Injuries. Sydney: The Federation Press Cihon, P. J. and Castagnera, J. O., 2008. Employment & Labor Law. 6th ed. New York: Cengage Learning Cohen, N. and McKendrick, E., 2005. Comparative Remedies for Breach of Contract. Portland: Hart Publishers Cornell.edu, n.d. Tort. Available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort [Accessed 1 Nov. 2014] Giliker, P., 2010. Vicarious Liability in Tort: A Comparative Perspective (Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law). 1st ed. New York: Cambridge University Press Harpwood, V. H., 2009. Modern Tort Law. 7th ed. New York: Taylor & Francis e- Library Hodgson, J. and Lewthwaite, J., 2007. Tort Law textbook. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Inter Corporation (UK) Limited v Daw, 2007. Available at http://www.lawteacher.net/employment-law/essays/liability-for-stress-at-work-employment-law-essay.php [Accessed 1 Nov. 2014]. Munkman, J. H., 1959. Employers liability at common law. 11th ed. London: Butterworths Law Selwyn, N. M., 2006. Selwyns Law of Employment. 14th ed. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Stranks, J. W., 2006. The Managers Guide to Health & Safety at Work. 8th ed. London: Creative Print and Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale Walker v. Northumberland C.C., 1995. Available at http://www.lawteacher.net/employment-law/essays/liability-for-stress-at-work-employment-law-essay.php [Accessed 1 Nov. 2014]. Read More