Employers the liability Cases
Walker v Northumberland County Council (1995)
This situatio is distinctive as one of the first successful promises for work-related stress. Mr Walker was employed by Northumberland County Authorities as a mature social staff member. At the time of the case, he had performed for the authority intended for 17 years, dealing primarily with situations of child mistreatment. In the eighties, his work load gradually elevated to this kind of extent that in 1986 this individual suffered a nervous breakdown. This was diagnosed by his GP who have recommended time off work to recuperate. On his go back to work, Walker discussed his situation together with his employers and told all of them that, intended for him to function normally, his caseload/workload needed to be reduced. Having been promised extra resources to assist. Initially, having been given an assistant, although this seemingly did not assistance to any wonderful degree, when he suffered the second breakdown half a year later. This kind of resulted in his being terminated on the grounds of long lasting ill wellness - which in turn probably put into his stress levels. As a result of this dismissal following the second nervous malfunction, Walker said compensation coming from his employer, claiming that they were in breach with their common-law work of attention to provide a secure working environment. Having been successful in his claim because his company had been produced aware that having been under serious pressure at the office, witness the first nervous breakdown.
Johnson v Crossley Bros (1951) Current Regulation Year Book (1947-51) 6831
The plaintiff, an apprentice employed in the defendants' beginner training institution, was seriously injured by a practical joke played upon him by two fellow-apprentices. The The courtroom of Charm held the defendants not liable to the plaintiff in negligence, because his harm had happened through an action of wilful misbehaviour that this defendants wasn't able to reasonably include foreseen.
Seas v MPC (2000) 27 July 2150
From the conversation of Lord Slynn:
The plaintiff was obviously a police officer. Your woman alleged that on 15 February 1988 in her police household accommodation for Marylebone the lady was raped and buggered by a other officer at any given time when they had been both away duty. On 3 Drive 1988 the girl complained to her reporting Sgt and afterwards she lamented to other officers by what had happened. A writ was given on some February year 1994 against the MPC and a press release of state served upon 20 06 1994. Your woman alleged the MPC was to be treated as her employer which in breach of his duty with her as such, in breach of contract and of statutory responsibility and negligently he did not deal properly with her complaint yet " triggered and/or authorized officers to maliciously criticise, harass, victimise, threaten, and assault and otherwise oppress her" as set out inside the statement of claim. Otherwise she so-called that the surveys takers was accountable vicariously to get the serves of officials under his command in the Metropolitan Police.
The principal declare raised inside the action was one of negligence-the " employer" failed to exercise due treatment to look after his " employee". Generically lots of the acts supposed can be seen being a form of bullying-the " employer" or all those to whom this individual delegated the responsibilities to get running his organisation needs to have taken steps to stop this, to protect the " employee" from that. They did not do so. They will made unjust reports and so they tried to force her to leave law enforcement.
If an company knows that works being done by simply employees throughout their employment might cause physical or perhaps mental harm to a particular other employee and he does nothing to supervise or prevent such serves, when it is in his power to do this, it is clearly arguable that he may be in breach of his duty to that staff. He may also be in breach of that work if they can foresee that such acts may happen of course, if they do, that physical or perhaps mental damage may be induced to an person. Lord Slynn accepted (Evans LJ in the Court of Appeal was prepared to presume without deciding) that in the event that this...