Liability of Employers for Psychiatric Illnesses - Essay Example

?Liability of Employers for Psychiatric Illnesses Contract agreements between an employer and an employee involve the former providing reasonable care to the latter. An employer owes a personal duty of care in common law negligence to his employees (Cihon and Castagnera, 2008). Psychiatric illness inflicted negligently by an employer amounts to liability for negligent misstatements by the employer (Hodgson and Lewthwaite, 2007). The case piting Walker vs. Northumberland County Council (1995), stated that the employer’s duty of care to provide a safe working system extended to the case where it reasonably foresaw that the employee might suffer psychiatric damage due to stress caused by the amount and nature of work the employee carried out. In other four similar cases in 2002, the Court of Appeal stated that for employees to gain compensation from their employers, they must inform the latter of their stressful working conditions and give them a chance to remedy the situation. Damages for psychiatric injury caused by stressful working conditions can only be recovered where the employee exhibited clear signs of the injury suffered. This must have been reasonably foreseeable by the employer. Liability for psychiatric damage can be claimed where the employer breached a duty of care by not acting in response to the reasonably foreseeable signs of damage (Munkman, 1990). Courts developed volenti non fit injuria, where the employee (defendant) had to prove the employer’s liability beyond a reasonable doubt in the 19th Century. This law excluded claims by employees against their employers. This law commonly affected the manufacturing industry. Imposing such vast liability would be too costly and would impede the growth of the industry (Butler, 2002b). An employee who suffered from psychiatric illness due to stress at work is not enough to claim reparation of damages from the employer. In the Rorris on case, Lord Reed ruled that there must be a recognised psychiatric illness and not mere depression or anxiety. The defendant could recover damages only if she sustained a psychiatric illness commonly recognised as psychiatric disorders by a recognised a psychiatrist. She also had to have never been diagnosed with psychiatric disorder before. An action based on mere negligence only is not sufficient for a claim (Butler, 2002a). An employee who successfully proves the case can claim primary liability or vicarious liability. To claim primary liability, the employee must prove: Existence of a Duty of Care The employer’s duty is to offer reasonable care and to avoid exposing a member of staff to preventable risk of injury. This is depicted in the Walker vs. Northumberland County Council (1995) case. Similarly, in Cross Lord MacFadyen said that an employer’s common law duty is to provide conclusive care for his worker’s wellbeing and health. This should extend to include a reasonable duty of care, which does not expose the worker to working circumstances that have the potential of bringing him or her mental damage or disease (Selwyn, 1990). Foreseeability If a prediction cannot be made, then duty of care will not arise. A worker would have to prove that, on his part, the risk of getting psychiatric injury was predictable. Anguish, anger, sorrow and anxiety cannot attract reimbursement because they are ordinary feelings experienced by all human beings (Giliker, 2010). People can claim rewards only in situations where psychiatric illness is reasonably foreseeable. This was the case as indicated by Lord Bridge of Harwich. Breach of Duty If the injury is foreseeable, then follows the inquiry of whether or not there is breach of duty of care. To determine this, complaints made by the worker should have been clearly recorded. The history must sufficiently prove that the employer was aware that a psychiatric illness was likely to occur due to the employee working under stressful conditions. Then it should be determined whether the employer acted promptly by initiating a probe into the issue. If so, it is hard to say that the employer breached his duty of care, and this is a justification to seek damage compensation (Harpwood, 2009). Causation This is the basis used to claim recoverable loss caused by the breach of duty. To succeed, an expert medical opinion requires showing a link between the psychiatric injury and breach of duty (Stranks, 2006) To claim vicarious liability the employee must prove: Duty of Reasonable Care This is a liability for the employer only if he/she acted negligently. This depends on how the employee proves foreseeability. If the latter fails to prove foreseeable circumstances, then he/she cannot claim compensation. Deliberate Actions If an employer perpetrated deliberate delicts, then there will be no reason to prove foreseeability. This is because the injury caused would be without a doubt foreseeable; hence, the employer is said to have the intention to harm. It, therefore, follows that a deliberate action caused by the employer with the intention of inflicting psychiatric injury is sufficient evidence for the employee to claim compensation. However, the employee must prove the intention. Another liability that may be imposed on the employer is contractual liability. This claim may be imposed on the employer if implied term in the contractual agreement proves contractual liability. Failure of the employer to comply with an implied term will entitle the psychiatric damaged employee to claim compensation. For example, an implied term in the employment contract stating that the employer will take reasonable measures in the workplace to guarantee the safety of staff, which includes a reasonable duty of care not to create psychiatric damage to an employee. Where the psychiatric injury suffered by an employee can be evaluated as the unreasonable behaviour of the employer; the former can undoubtedly seek damages for the same. This comes about when employer breaches a term implied in the employment contract. Employers must extensively be able to prove that as far as is conclusively practicable, they have supplied a suitable working environment for their employees. This, as proved by Cohen and McKendrick (2005), assists employers avoid legal cases against employees seeking compensation. Employers need to take measures to reduce stressful working conditions for employees to avoid liability for psychiatric illnesses suffered due to this. Bibliography Butler, D. A., 2002a. Damages for psychiatric injuries. Sydney: The Federation Press. Butler, D. A., 2002b. Employer liability for workplace trauma. London: Ashgate Pub Ltd. Cihon, P. J. and Castagnera, J. O., 2010. Employment & labor law. 6th ed. New York: Cengage Learning. Cohen, N. and McKendrick, E., 2005. Comparative remedies for breach of contract. Portland: Hart Publishers. 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. Munkman, J. H., 1959. Employer's liability at common law. 11th ed. London: Butterworths Law. Selwyn, N. M., 2006. Selwyn's law of employment. 14th ed. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Stranks, J. W., 2006. The manager's guide to health & safety at work. 8th ed. London: Creative Print and Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale. Read More