Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Case highlights limits to employers’ duty of care

by Personnel Today 14 Nov 2000
by Personnel Today 14 Nov 2000

State Hospitals Board could not have predicted causing employee’s psychiatric illness, says Scottish Court Session

Most employers will be aware, not least from recent cases concerning stress, that they have a duty to take reasonable care of the health and safety of their employees. They have a responsibility to make reasonable efforts to avoid exposing employees to the risk of injury, including psychiatric harm.

The development of the case law in this area has given employers cause for concern, given the apparent increase in the number of employees reporting stress and anxiety within the workplace. How far, then, does the employer’s duty go?

Some comfort may be taken from the recent case of Fraser v State Hospitals Board for Scotland which indicates there are limits to the duty to take reasonable care when it comes to stress.

The case came before the Scottish Court Session. Fraser had been employed as a nurse in a high-security prison hospital. In 1994, he was accused of failing to ensure that proper security checks were carried out.

He refused to accept that he was responsible for these security breaches, as a result of which, in 1995, his manager decided to remove some of his responsibilities and put him under supervision of a lower grade nurse for three months.

In the event, this supervision lasted longer and in January 1996 Fraser, who was resentful about the treatment he had received, went off sick. He did not return to work. He was diagnosed as suffering from a combination of stress and depression and told the board that this had resulted from his inability to cope with the changes made to his responsibilities. He was subsequently dismissed on grounds of mental health in June 1996. Fraser claimed damages for personal injury.

The court looked at three issues:

– Whether Fraser was suffering from a condition for which damages were potentially recoverable.

– Whether the employer was responsible for causing that condition.

– Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that he would suffer the condition.

In answer to the first question, the court accepted medical evidence that, although stress, anxiety and depression were not psychiatric illnesses, a depressive disorder, such as that suffered by Fraser, was.

The court also accepted that the changes to Fraser’s responsibilities were contributory causes to his illness.

Finally, the court considered the third question – had it been reasonably foreseeable that the board’s treatment of Fraser would cause him to suffer harm?

The answer was "no". The employer’s duty to protect employees from injury does not go beyond taking reasonable care to prevent psychiatric or physical harm. It is not intended to protect employees from feelings such as anger and bitterness or normal conditions such as stress or anxiety which do not cause "injury".

It was accepted that managers often have to take decisions, for example, in relation to disciplinary issues, which they know are likely to cause anger and anxiety for the employees concerned. However, it is going too far to say that a manager ought to anticipate that these decisions will cause the employee to suffer a psychiatric illness – actual harm.


Key points


– The court held that it did not matter whether the employee was a person of "normal fortitude" or somebody particularly susceptible to psychiatric harm as a result of the employer’s acts.

– If an employer can say that they knew a certain act or decision would make an employee upset but there is nothing to suggest that the employer should have known it would make the employee ill, the employer will have a defence to the claim.

– The way in which the medical information was considered by the court reinforces the need to ensure that expert evidence is as specialised for the particular condition as possible.

By Sarah Lamont, partner at Bevan Ashford

Avatar
Personnel Today

previous post
Grassroots call for a more political CIPD
next post
Grassroots call for a more political CIPD

You may also like

The Search for Talent: Six Major Employer Pitfalls

24 May 2022

Grants scheme set up to support women’s health...

16 May 2022

How music can help to ease anxiety at...

9 May 2022

OH will be key to navigating ‘second pandemic’...

14 Apr 2022

OH urged to be aware of abortion consultations...

8 Apr 2022

How coached eCBT is returning the workplace to...

8 Apr 2022

Why now is the time to plug the...

7 Apr 2022

Two-thirds of shift workers feel health affected by...

18 Mar 2022

TUC warns of April Covid risk assessment ‘confusion’

14 Mar 2022

Consultation on new NHS cancer standards, as waits...

11 Mar 2022
  • The Search for Talent: Six Major Employer Pitfalls PROMOTED | The Great Resignation continues unabated...Read more
  • Navigating the widening “Skills Confidence Gap” in 2022, and beyond PROMOTED | Cornerstone OnDemand conducted a global study...Read more
  • Apprenticeships are the solution to your recruitment problems PROMOTED | Apprenticeships have the pulling power...Read more
  • What it really means to be mentally fit PROMOTED | What is mental fitness...Read more
  • How music can help to ease anxiety at work PROMOTED | A lot has happened since March 2020, hasn’t it?...Read more
  • Why now is the time to plug the unhealthy gap PROMOTED | We’ve all heard the term ‘health is wealth’...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 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+