SOMERVILLE v HARSCO INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED [2015] ScotSC 71 (17 November 2015)

SOMERVILLE v HARSCO INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED [2015] ScotSC 71 (17 November 2015)

The act of throwing the hammer was a personal act of horseplay or a frolic, not closely connected with Mr Smith's employment or his duties as a supervisor. The incident did not further the employer's aims, nor was it related to friction or confrontation inherent in the employer's enterprise. It was not fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable. The sheriff did not err in law in refusing vicarious liability.

Citation
[2015] ScotSC 71
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Christopher Somerville; Defenders and Respondents: Harsco Infrastructure Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury, Vicarious Liability) / Appeal by Stated Case From Sheriff's Decision
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Employer's Liability, Personal Injury, Course of Employment, Horseplay at Work
Tort Law Employment Law Vicarious Liability Employer's Liability Personal Injury Course of Employment Horseplay at Work

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Somerville

Pursuer and Appellant

Harsco Infrastructure Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury, Vicarious Liability) / Appeal by Stated Case From Sheriff's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer is vicariously liable for the employee's act of throwing a hammer causing injury during workplace banter

Ratio Decidendi

The act of throwing the hammer was a personal act of horseplay or a frolic, not closely connected with Mr Smith's employment or his duties as a supervisor. The incident did not further the employer's aims, nor was it related to friction or confrontation inherent in the employer's enterprise. It was not fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable. The sheriff did not err in law in refusing vicarious liability.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor of 5 December 2014 adhered to; all questions of expenses reserved.