Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Vicarious liability

Legal Q & A: Vicarious liability

by Personnel Today 8 Apr 2003
by Personnel Today 8 Apr 2003

By David Bickford, head of employment law at Fladgate Fielder

Q We have a particularly accident-prone employee. We are worried he may
injure other colleagues, despite our best efforts. Would we be liable?

A There appears to be a current trend among the judiciary to pass the
blame on to employers wherever possible. This seems to be based on the economic
reality that employers are insured for such eventualities, whereas the actual
employee who causes the harm probably isn’t.

Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, employers are liable for acts of
their employees done "in the course of their employment". The ambit
of this phrase has been widening, so that even where employees are acting in
breach of specific instructions from their employer or even against the
principles of common sense, the employer may be liable. While the insurance
position remains the way it is, the law on vicarious liability is unlikely to
change.

Q Following our Christmas party – to which only staff were invited – we
have received a tribunal claim from a woman who says she was sexually harassed
by a fellow worker. The party was in a hotel and after work. Are we liable?

A The employer has a duty to protect its staff from harassment on the
grounds of sex. You may be vicariously liable unless you can demonstrate that
reasonable and practicable steps were taken to prevent such harassment.

The courts interpret acts done by a harasser "in the course of the
employment" in the sense that they are used in everyday speech. The fact
that the incident occurred at a social event away from company premises will
not prevent the employer from being liable. It is appropriate in the context of
social gathering to consider whether the circumstances were an extension of the
work relationship.

Two factors the courts will consider are whether or not someone was actually
at work or on the employer’s premises, but they are not conclusive in
themselves. As all of the attendees were your staff, you are likely to be
liable if any harassment took place. Obviously, check that the claim was
launched within the three-month time limit allowed.

Q One of our clients was particularly rude to a member of staff during a
three-day conference and allegedly made some racist comments about him. The
employee is now claiming it is our fault and is seeking legal advice. Should we
have done anything differently?

A Courts have held that where any employer becomes aware of their
workforce being subjected to offensive behaviour, they should consider removing
the member of staff or asking the client or customer to leave.

An employer will be liable if he allows harassment to occur in circumstances
that he can control, whether it happens or not. If a tribunal finds that you
did have sufficient control but failed to exercise it, then you will be liable.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Q After a company social event one of our employees crashed her car, and
when breathalysed, she was found to be over the limit. She is now saying that
we are responsible for her injuries. Is this correct?

A As the law currently stands in the UK, the answer to that question
is almost certainly no. However, in the US, an employee injured in similar
circumstances was awarded £136,000. The court held that the company owed a duty
to the employee to safeguard her from harm, and that this duty extended to
making sure she would not become so intoxicated while on the company premises
that it interfered with her ability to drive home safely afterwards.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Construction sector to benefit from £9m training scheme
next post
Fixed legislation dates could lead to sloppy laws

You may also like

New law could make it easier for organisations...

8 Apr 2024

Employer found liable for sexual misconduct at party

31 May 2023

Worker injured in practical joke cannot take vicarious...

22 Sep 2022

Tarmac not liable for injury resulting from ‘horseplay’,...

12 Jan 2022

Seven key employment law cases from 2020

17 Dec 2020

How Covid-19 has added to ‘insider threat’ risks

7 Jul 2020

Barclays not liable for sexual assaults committed by...

2 Apr 2020

Six employment law cases that will shape 2020

14 Jan 2020

Supreme Court hears final Barclays appeal in sexual...

28 Nov 2019

Morrisons’ vicarious liability appeal reaches Supreme Court

6 Nov 2019

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+