Duty of Care in British Common Law - Essay Example

Duty of care Introduction In the British common law, duty of care refers to a form of legal obligation that require individuals to adhere and provide particular standards while undertaking activities that may cause harm to others (Kidner 2012). Employers must always accommodate their employees a feature that gives them a duty of care to provide a safe, health and secure working environment for their employees. As such, employers have the legal obligation to ensure the safety and health thus both the physical and psychological wellbeing of their employees. An employer will therefore have a liability in case his or her employee suffers from any psychiatric illness because of working under stressful conditions as the discussion below portrays. A stressful working environment is definitely unconducive thus not productive. Creating a conducive working environment in not only a motivational technique used by employers to enhance productivity but is also a basic right for every employer. Recruiting employees to a position requires that an employer consider the professional maturity of the employees thus his ability to handle the stress that may arise from the job. For an employee to contract a psychiatric condition because of working in stressful working environment the employer is arguably liable for either causing the stress or negligence both of which are provable forms of a breach on duty of care. The application of duty of care in England requires key specific features. These include the existence of a “reasonable foreseeable” result of the employer. An employee working in a stressful is defiantly foreseeable. Such employees are likely to complain to their employees characterized with instances of underperformance. With such signs, an accommodative employer should either replace an employee or improve the working condition by addressing the concerns of the employees with the view to preventing any form of psychiatric breakdowns. When such features of the workplace persists to the point of an employee acquiring a psychiatric disorder, then the employer is liable for breaching the duty of care since they failed to care for the safety and health of their employees. Secondly, the English common law requires a plaintiff to prove proximity with the defendant (BAILEY, 2005). The scope of application of the duty of care dictates that the law is applicable even in cases where the two are far apart. The relationship between an employer and an employee for example is always intimate. An employee is part of the resources belonging to the employer. As such, the employer must always account for the safety and health of the employees. Additionally, an employer and an employee are always in constant communication with the employer showing interest in the operations of the employee by supervising the levels of productivity. Such features of the relationship proves that the two always exist in close proximity with the employer in a position to make any necessary changes in order to improve the working conditions thus curbing the manifestation of psychiatric health complications arising from stressful conditions. Given the above facts, an employer becomes solely liable in case an employee acquires psychiatric disorder. Finally, the Common law in England requires that the process of imposing liability must always be “fair, just and reasonable.” Making an employee to work in a stressful environment is a deliberate disregard on the values and rights of an employee. This makes any intention of imposing the liability fair, reasonable and just. As explained earlier, making an employee to work in a stressful environment is a deliberate act whose aim is to cause injury to the employee. As such, the employer is liable for committing a crime by breaching the duty of care. Additionally, the employees working under such circumstances are always likely to express themselves in various ways. The deterioration of the situation to the level that an employee contracts a psychiatric condition shows a culmination of the ill treatment of the employee. The above explanations presents a scenario where the employer acts deliberately thus compelling the employee to contract the disease. Compelling an employee to work in stressful environments despite the complaints is an offence that rises from the breach of the duty of care as the employer supplants his duty with his desire for enhanced profitability. These make the imposition of liability a fair, just and reasonable process since the employee seeks compensation for his or her losses. An individual suffering from psychiatric disorders is unproductive and cannot provide for his or her family anymore. Furthermore, such individual always require dedicated medical services in order to reestablish their mental stability. This implies that such employees would spend substantial amount in the treatment process owing to the diseases they acquire from the work environment. Such considerations justify the imposition of liability against the employer since the employee demands justice and compensation for his or her injuries. In tort law, duty of care is a type of the laws that govern negligence. As such, a plaintiff must always prove the breach of the duty. In the above case, a breach exists thus showing the employers liability. As discussed earlier, the employer is always in charge of the working environment. An employer owns the resources of production in a company including the human resource. At the point of hiring, an employer takes responsibility of the safety, health and security of the employee especially when they are within the company’s premises. The employer must always safeguard the psychiatric stability of the employees by developing a conducive environment, one that enhances the productivity of the employees. In retrospect, an employee contracting a psychiatric condition because of working in stressful environments is an example of a breach of the duty of care, which in the English common binds people to uphold specific values while interacting with others. Under the duty of care, an employer has the legal obligations to provide a safe and secure working environment thereby safeguarding the health of the employees. Forcing an employee to work in a stressful environment thus causing them a psychiatric breakdown is an obvious breach of the duty of care laws thereby making the employer liable for the crime leading to the disease. Reference BAILEY, S. H. (2005). Cases, materials and commentary on administrative law. London, Sweet & Maxwell. KIDNER, R. (2012). Casebook on torts. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Read More