Employers Liability in Negligence - Case Study Example

Running Head: Employer’s liability in negligence Employer’s liability in negligence Negligence is the failure to use the ordinary care of either by a general act of omission. It occurs when an individual does not practice an amount of care that a reasonable and rational person will use. It also occurs when somebody does an act which a reasonable person will not do under the prevailing circumstances. Proximate cause occurs when the plaintiff incurs injuries as a result of negligent actions of the defendant and the injury must have been a natural and probable result of the conduct. Duty care in the tort negligence has evolved over time. The whole idea commenced in a negligence case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) where the claimant took a beer which had a dead snail in it, according to Lord Atkins; a person should take reasonable care to avoid acts or omission which can be reasonably be seen and can hurt the neighbour. This case was the first basis to set up a foundation of care of duty. This test was transitioned to form the three part test in the case of Caparo v Dickman (1990). The test entailed a demonstration of three significant elements; reasonably foreseeable that a person would be injured, there was proximity between the parties, fair and just to impose liability on the defendant. Vicarious liability is a tort that basically imposes a relationship between one person and another for the failures of a different person with whom a special relationship exists. This may happen in such cases as parent and child, employer and employee or a driver and owner of the vehicle. It is a doctrine that assigns a legal injury accusation on a person who did not carry out the act but has a binding relationship with the doer of the act (Adamson 2012). The doctrine of respondent superior (let the employee answer) is founded on the employer - employee relationship. This doctrine makes the employer answerable to the deeds or negligence exhibited by the employee in accordance with the relationship that exists. For this doctrine to be enacted the employees negligence must emanate from the scope of the work being done. The employer is legally charged, since the employee is associated with the employer. The employer’s duties are commonly drafted under four subsections according to law. This entails such aspects as; competency of the staff absorbed by the employer, ensuring a safe and conducive place of work, effective and efficient plant and equipment and safe and guaranteed system of work. This is to see that proper care of the employees is achieved at workplace and ensure that incase of any occurrence liability is easily determined and accounted for (Fishback & Kantor 2000). In the case of Mr Woods’s vs. the Employers it can be justified that, there was a reasonable and foreseeable aspect that a person would be injured. In their capacities as employers or management injury was easy to detect, but they chose to assume that it will not happen, secondly there was proximity between the parties involved. Mr Woods was an employee in the factories while the third party was his daughter who happened to be closely linked to him and lastly, it is only fair and just to hold the employers liable for the injuries they imposed on the third party. Over the past years, courts have formulated a framework to determine the amount of liabilities to be embraced by a multiple defendant case. For example, Mr Wood was seemingly hired by four companies; in case of a liability action, each of these employers will split the economic damages proportionally. But in case where one defendant is insolvent, the remaining defendants must take care of the compensation to the fullest. However, each defendant will be liable for that uneconomical portion of the harm inflicted (Oliphant, Wagner & Alunuru 2012). According to Waters v MPC [2000] 27 July, the employers were vicariously liable for the actions committed by Woods. The employers were liable because they know or can foresee the acts being done by the employee are likely to cause harm to fellow employees or the third parties. The employer was liable because they did not take the mandates to stop the actions. Thus, for an employer to be liable for the actions of the employee the actions must be closely linked to the work being undertaken. In Mr Woods’s case it was totally related to the work he undertook. Staying without changing rooms was a liability the employer was to carry. Thus, any harm infringed on any third party was to be addressed to the employer. Further, there was a correlation between the act of the daughter running towards a father and the work being done in the factories. Mr Woods will thus argue that the work being done at the factory was strongly correlated to the actions of the daughter. This is the opposite of the same principle which is applied in the case of a barmaid who hauls a bottle at a customer. While the maid was employed to serve the customers anything she did outside the scope of her duty was not liable to the employer. This means Woods decision to not change the work clothes was entirely not an individual, but a no alternative approach rather than to go home with the clothes. Cook v Square D Ltd (1992) ICR 262, 268 and 271. In this case it is clear that the employers are liable for the actions of the employee to a third party. Mr Woods’s actions which led to the illness of his daughter are completely to be accounted for by the employers. The employer is under obligation to respect the influence of a third party even though no full control of a third party’s premises can be achieved. This case authenticates the responsibility of the employer to protect a third party from injury induced by their agents (Perline & Goldschmidt 2004). Employers should take a mandate of taking care of appliances and providing or maintaining the appliances in proper conditions. Lord Herschel depicts that when the equipment in question is unavailable the employer will definitely be liable for any harm which can emanate. However, relief can be granted in which case the employer is compelled to possess the latest appliances. In the case of Toronto Vs. Power Company it depicts the liability of the employer if the employees suffer injuries while undertaking their duties which are caused by defective equipment. Mr Woods clothing was actually contaminated by the factorys products, it is the same remnants on the work clothe that affected his daughter who tends to be a third party. Thus, according to this case the factories are liable for the actions which led to the daughter’s illness, since these factors stream down to the job environment in the factories. On the contrary, if Mr Woods acted foolishly by not disinfecting his attire, then it will be a personal liability action since the employer gave all the necessary tools. Also, if the necessary instructions were conveyed by the employer on how to handle the contagious chemicals at the workplace, then Mr Woods will be personally liable for the daughter’s illness and the employers will not be liable for the harm. (Perline & Goldschmidt 2004). Any particular operation will require a safe system of work. This system can either be left to the employees’ judgment or followed up by management. This categorization is commonly applied in the regular jobs in the company. Mr Wood was left to have his own jurisdiction on the safety requirements of his job and the impact to a third party. However, any harm which could result was liable to the employers. By his daughter falling ill as a result of the contamination from the factories was a clear signal of the employer’s liability. The employer will absorb any harm infringed on the third party as a result of the productions in the company or employees dissemination of the harm. Petch v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1993] ICR 789 demonstrates the liability of an employer as resultant effect of the employee in relation to products produced (Oliphant, Wagner & Alunuru 2012). Industrial safety legislation is one area courts have frequently allowed law actions. These regulations are made under the safety, prudence act 1979 which have significantly replaced the factories regulation policies, mining rules and offices and railway premises regulations. The 1974 act outlines a number of duties in relation working environment, breaching these rules will effectively lead to a civil crisis. Numerous stipulations have been introduced to comply with the EC safety and working environment sections this includes; noisy workplaces, workplace regulations, and working appliances regulations and management of work safety regulations. According to this act, the Employers of Mr Wood are liable for the dissemination of hazardous materials. The clothing being contaminated would have been left at the workplace and disinfected. This is basically a health regulation procedure which the employer should ensure that the employee is safe and sound. Thus, Mr Woods infecting his daughter was a liability to be assumed by the employers since the asbestos could not have leaked out of the factory in the first place. According to the act, the employer is liable for any injury caused to the employees and third parties, if regulations are not incorporated into the system (Adamson 2012). The employers in this case can also be deemed as negligent in entrustment. Thus, in this scenario the employers are found to be liable for the harm inflicted on the third party. It is favourable for management to ensure that equipment used or exposed in the factory never finds their way out. With the plaintiff’s stand to accuse the employers of negligence in entrustment, the employers stand in a position to be liable for the harm caused. Mr Woods was from work and the toxic asbestos his daughter breathes was as a result of the indulgence he was engrossed in. Thus, according to the vicarious liability the employer is liable for the effects the daughter suffered. Mr Woods did not definitely act knowingly as it can be assessed that he operated in four companies this depicts that he was under strict timelines to deliver the employers expectations. According to 1834 case of Joel v Morison, it is clear that Mr Woods was within the mandate of his duties. He had barely changed his clothes and generally handled no any other job to depict that he was operating on his personal errands. Being on his way home was a sign that he had not switched from work based issues to home activities, thus, the vicarious liability held. In the case of Wallbank v Wallbank designs [2012] in which W was assaulted by B, the Supreme Court ruled that it was a case of vicarious liability as B carrying out tasks commanded by the employer. In the same way Mr Woods was going home after work depicted that he was obeying the framework instilled by his employers. Its often after work that an employee retires to prepare for the next day’s work Mr Woods is found to be observing his employers stipulations. Hence the case turns out to be a vicarious liability, which means that the employers were liable for the illness or poisoning of his daughter (Fishback & Kantor 2000). The above cases demonstrate employer’s vicarious liability. This is described as actions which are performed by employees, which are generally in line with the job description. If the employee negligently performs his duties, then the employer will be liable for any harm which may crop from it. However, for the case of intentional circumstances the court will determine whether there was a close connection between the action and the work description. If there are no interrelated aspects found, then the employee will be found liable for their own actions. References Adamson, J. E. (2012). Law for business and personal use. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Fishback, P. V. M., & Kantor, S. E. (2000). A prelude to the welfare state: The origins of workers compensation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Oliphant, K., Wagner, G., & Alunaru, C. (2012). Employers liability and workers compensation. Berlin: De Gruyter. Perline, I. H., & Goldschmidt, J. (2004). The psychology and law of workplace violence: A handbook for mental health professionals and employers. Springfield, Ill: C.C. Thomas. Read More