Updated to include information on a £5 million fine for health and safety breaches.
The Supreme Court has held that an employer was vicariously liable for the actions of an employee who seriously assaulted a customer while at work.
The Supreme Court has held that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was vicariously liable for the negligence of a prisoner who injured a member of staff while carrying out kitchen work.
John Bracken and Nancy Goldman-Edwards are trainee solicitors and Chris McAvoy, Lucy Sorell and Rachael Wake are associates at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
The Court of Appeal has held that creating the risk of harm in the workplace was not sufficient to impose liability on the employer for the "frolicsome but reckless" conduct of an employee.
The Court of Appeal has held that the Ministry of Justice, which it found had a relationship with a prisoner assigned to do kitchen work "akin to employment", was vicariously liable for the negligence of the prisoner when he accidentally dropped a heavy sack of food on a member of staff's back.
The Court of Appeal agreed with a county court that the "close connection" test to determine whether or not an employer is vicariously liable for the assault committed by its employee on a customer requires some additional factor that goes beyond the mere fact that the employment provided the opportunity and setting for the assault to occur and the employee's duties included interaction with customers.
The law on negligence claims by employees and non-employees who are injured at work, and the commercial consequences of occupational incidents, stress, accidents and ill health.
Definition from the XpertHR glossary.
Health and Safety Bulletin (HSB) reports on a festive judgment from the Court of Appeal.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to employers' liability for health and safety breaches.