Chell v Tarmac Cement And Lime Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 7 (12 January 2022)

Chell v Tarmac Cement And Lime Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 7 (12 January 2022)

There was not a sufficiently close connection between Mr Heath's act and his employment to impose vicarious liability on Tarmac, as the act was a personal prank unrelated to work duties, not furthering the employer's business, and not an improper mode of performing an authorised act. There was also no breach of duty as there was no reasonably foreseeable risk of injury from horseplay in the circumstances, and Tarmac's general site rules and conduct policies were adequate.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 7
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Andrew Chell; Defendant/respondent: Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Employer's Duty of Care, Personal Injury, Workplace Safety, Negligence
Tort Law Employment Law Vicarious Liability Employer's Duty of Care Personal Injury Workplace Safety Negligence

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Chell

Claimant/appellant

Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, Mr Heath, who caused injury to the appellant through a practical joke.
  2. 2 Whether Tarmac breached its direct duty of care to the appellant by failing to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury.

Ratio Decidendi

There was not a sufficiently close connection between Mr Heath's act and his employment to impose vicarious liability on Tarmac, as the act was a personal prank unrelated to work duties, not furthering the employer's business, and not an improper mode of performing an authorised act. There was also no breach of duty as there was no reasonably foreseeable risk of injury from horseplay in the circumstances, and Tarmac's general site rules and conduct policies were adequate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed