Media Centre

When is an employer liable for violence between its employees? In the recent cases of Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd; Wallbank v Wallbank Designs Ltd, the Court of Appeal considered the issue of employer liability for the actions of violent employees.

In both cases the claimants, who were the victims of violence by other employees, sued their employer, claiming that it was vicariously liable for their injuries. Established case law on this point provides that an employer is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees where these occur "in the course of employment". The key question is "whether the [employee's] conduct is so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employers vicariously liable".

In Wallbank, the claimant was a senior employee, who was concerned about the rate at which a junior employee was loading goods onto a conveyor belt. The claimant went over to assist the employee with loading the items saying "come on" as he did so. The employee then placed his hand on the claimant's face and threw him onto a table, injuring the claimant's lower back. It was held that as the violence was related to the employment in terms of both time and space, and that as the violence was a spontaneous and instantaneous reaction to the instruction, it could be said to have been committed in the course of employment.

In Weddall, the claimant (a manager) telephoned an employee to make a routine request that he volunteer for a night shift. The employee then drunkenly rode to work on his bicycle and inflicted serious violence on the claimant. The Court considered that this was an independent venture of the employee's own, separate and distinct from his employment. The request was no more than a pretext for an act of violence unconnected with his work. The employee was not acting in the course of his employment - his actions fell outside that close connection which is required between the assault and the work that he was employed to do.

Alison Loveday of Berg commented: "These cases provide an important reminder to employers about the extent to which they can be liable for the acts of employees, especially where violence is involved. As these cases demonstrate, whether there is a close enough connection for an employer to be found liable will ultimately turn on the facts of each case.

In many workplaces, it may be difficult for employers to anticipate and prevent confrontational situations arising between employees. However, as the Court of Appeal identified the possibility of "friction" is inherent in any employment relationship, but particularly one in a factory, where instant instructions and quick reactions are required. In the Wallbank case, the instantaneous nature of the reaction was an important factor in establishing the closeness of the connection between the employee's violent actions and his employment.

It is advisable that to minimise the likelihood of employers being found liable for violent acts of their employees, employers should ensure that they have robust disciplinary rules that spell out that acts of violence will not be tolerated within the workplace. A zero tolerance policy should be actively implemented across the business to all employees at all levels of seniority."