Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited

Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited

There was no sufficiently close connection between Mr Heath's act and his employment to impose vicarious liability on Tarmac; no reasonably foreseeable risk of injury existed to establish breach of duty of care.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Andrew Chell; Defendant/respondent: Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Employer's Duty of Care, Personal Injury, Negligence
Tort Law Employment Law Vicarious Liability Employer's Duty of Care Personal Injury 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 3 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

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tarmac is vicariously liable for Mr Heath's actions causing injury to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether Tarmac breached its duty of care to the appellant by failing to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury

Ratio Decidendi

There was no sufficiently close connection between Mr Heath's act and his employment to impose vicarious liability on Tarmac; no reasonably foreseeable risk of injury existed to establish breach of duty of care.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed