Chell v Tarmac Cement And Lime Ltd [2020] EWHC 2613 (QB) (05 October 2020)

Chell v Tarmac Cement And Lime Ltd [2020] EWHC 2613 (QB) (05 October 2020)

The employer (Tarmac) was not vicariously liable for the injury caused by its employee's practical joke because the act was not sufficiently connected to the employee's field of activities or employment duties; it was a personal act, not in furtherance of the employer's business. There was also no direct breach of duty by Tarmac, as the risk of injury from such horseplay was not reasonably foreseeable, and the employer's health and safety procedures were adequate for the circumstances.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2613
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Andrew Chell; Defendant/respondent: Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Workplace Safety, Personal Injury, Risk Assessment, Horseplay at Work
Tort Law Employment Law Employer's Liability Vicarious Liability Negligence Workplace Safety Personal Injury Risk Assessment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Chell

Claimant/appellant

Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer (Tarmac) is vicariously liable for injury caused by an employee's practical joke
  2. 2 Whether Tarmac breached a direct duty of care to the claimant by failing to prevent foreseeable harm arising from workplace tensions and horseplay

Ratio Decidendi

The employer (Tarmac) was not vicariously liable for the injury caused by its employee's practical joke because the act was not sufficiently connected to the employee's field of activities or employment duties; it was a personal act, not in furtherance of the employer's business. There was also no direct breach of duty by Tarmac, as the risk of injury from such horseplay was not reasonably foreseeable, and the employer's health and safety procedures were adequate for the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the judgment of the County Court stands.