Cox v Ministry of Justice (Rev 2) [2014] EWCA Civ 132 (19 February 2014)

Cox v Ministry of Justice (Rev 2) [2014] EWCA Civ 132 (19 February 2014)

The Ministry of Justice is vicariously liable for the negligence of the prisoner because the relationship between the prison and the working prisoner was sufficiently akin to employment, satisfying the criteria for vicarious liability, including control, benefit to the defendant, and creation of risk. The direct duty of care was not breached as the failure to provide manual handling training was not causally relevant to the accident.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 132
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Susan Elaine Cox; Respondent/defendant: Ministry of Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Swansea County Court Judgment Dismissing Claim for Damages for Personal Injury
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Employer's Duty of Care, Personal Injury, Prison Law
Tort Law Employment Law Vicarious Liability Employer's Duty of Care Personal Injury Prison Law

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Elaine Cox

Appellant/claimant

Ministry of Justice

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Swansea County Court Judgment Dismissing Claim for Damages for Personal Injury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Ministry of Justice is vicariously liable for the negligence of a prisoner working in the prison kitchen who injured the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Ministry of Justice breached its direct duty of care to the claimant by failing to provide a safe system of work, safe place of work, and adequate training

Ratio Decidendi

The Ministry of Justice is vicariously liable for the negligence of the prisoner because the relationship between the prison and the working prisoner was sufficiently akin to employment, satisfying the criteria for vicarious liability, including control, benefit to the defendant, and creation of risk. The direct duty of care was not breached as the failure to provide manual handling training was not causally relevant to the accident.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant on the basis of vicarious liability; quantum of damages to be determined by the trial judge.