Tort Law Analysis - Case Study Example

TORT LAW CASE ANALYSIS Introduction This paper examines the case of Lucas, a Mathematics teacher at Walford High School who has taught for over 2 years in the school. He suffered verbal abuse from Tony Bale (who is a student in class 4B) and got a nervous breakdown and got a six-month medical leave. During the leave, he returned to the school and was enraged by Tony Bale, smoking in the corridor, where he beat him up and caused grievous bodily harm and sentenced to 2 years in prison. This paper examines Walford High school’s obligations as an employer to and the element of tort for both parties. The first part will set out the fundamental rules relating to employers’ liabilities in tort in this case. The second part will relate to Tony Bale’s rights to claim damages from Walford High School on the basis of vicarious liabilities Section 1: Lucas Claims for Employer Liabilities This section will examine the likelihood of Lucas bringing a successful claim for employer liability for the nervous breakdown he has suffered which led him to cause GBH to Lucas. The main issue here has two main facades, the first is about whether Waltford High School had an obligation towards Lucas or not, and whether this was discharged or not. The second aspect is about how the failure to achieve their liability to Lucas contributed to his actions and how it led to his assault and battery on Lucas. Relevant Legal Rules on Employer Liability and Tort Claims In a contract for employment, some important pointers have been identified to be essential and important in keeping the relationship between an employer and his employee going. In a landmark case, it was identified, that the employer has three fundamental obligations towards an employee: 1. Create a safe work environment; 2. Provide adequate material and 3. Proper supervision1 This case provided the basis for a set of fundamental and standard obligations that were required of workers in an employment relationship. This means that an employer has to take reasonable care to prevent all kinds of injuries in the workplace and ensure that work proceeds smoothly without issues. In another case involving Waters v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis2 it was held that actions that causes psychiatric injury on the work premises or in course of work are under an employer’s scope and the employer must take reasonable care to protect workers from such psychiatric injuries. There is an emphasis on stress as a psychological injury in the case of Walker V Northumberland County Council3. This showed that there is the need for a n employer to put in place important measures that will prevent employees from going through stress that might affect their livelihoods and their abilities as human beings. The rules for dealing with stress and psychiatric damage in the context of employment relations was shaped and defined in the case of Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust4. This is based on the fact that the risk of psychiatric damage was reasonably foreseeable to the employer and in such a situation the employer knew he should have taken reasonable care but failed to do so. These facts were further developed in the cases of Hatton V Sutherland5 where it was stated that an employer ought to take reasonable steps to check imminent harm that may occur in the workplace due to stress. This is an inherent obligation that an employer ought to take into account and try to deal with. Secondly, this must be done on the basis of positive thoughts for safety and it must be done in a way and manner that shows goodwill by studying the peculiar needs of an individual employee6. In order to prove obligation and liabilities for employers in tort claims, there is the need to prove it in fact and in law7. Proving a claim in fact involves the “but for” test which examines whether the relevant will have occurred if the intervening event had not happened in the first place8. And in assessing the cause in law, there must be proximity and this proximity must not be remote9. This must work together to ensure that the case in question works together to ensure that there is a logical chain of causation that goes back to the employer’s action or inaction. This is the only way the accused employer can be held liable for the losses and damages in question. Analysis of the Case From the facts of this case, Walford High School was responsible for Lucas’s health and safety in the workplace. This is because there was an employment relationship and amongst other things, they owed a basic duty of care to Lucas to provide a safe work environment and provide supervision and materials. Aside this, the principle of Walker V Northumberland makes it imperative for Walford High School to be responsible for the psychological injuries of Lucas and all other members of staff. Due to the nature of psychological injuries, it ought to be established in law and in fact. Establishing it in law is about establishing that the risk was foreseeable and it is fair to impose a duty of care on the employer. In this case, it is apparent that Class 4B was a problematic. Getting students misbehave and carry out negative actions was common. Therefore, it is sufficiently clear and ought to have been clear to the management of Walford High School that Lucas was exposed to a high degree of psychological stress that could have negative consequences. Therefore, it was imperative upon Walford, to examine the state of affairs of Lucas and give him regular checkups as a minimum obligation10. This requires taking the specific needs of a given individual into account and evaluating it regularly11. This is clearly an obligation that Walford did not carry out and as such, they are responsible for the consequences of the psychological injuries. And this also has to do with the fact that Lucas got into a very bad condition and situation. In terms of cause in fact, it is apparent that but for the failures of Walford High School, Lucas would not have been in such a situation where he would have to vent out on Tony Bale as he did. Therefore, there is an obligation that specifically goes to Walford High School. However, in terms of defences, it can be said that there is a credible and logical defence of Walford that Lucas committed a crime and an offence and was jailed for it. In the case of Gray v Thames Trains Ltd12, the principle of Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio was applied and this was meant to clear the air on situations whereby people were barred from getting benefits from their own illegal actions. And this is to prevent an individual from profiting from an offence as a means of gaining an end in a tortuous claim. This is a defence Walford can raise to bar Lucas from making claims because he has committed a crime and to that end, he has been convicted. As such, he has no moral or legal right to make any demands under the existing legal systems and structures for his own benefits. Conclusion It is apparent that Walford High School owed Lucas a duty of care in fact and in law to monitor his psychological level in relation to handling a problematic class. This is because they should have reasonably foreseen the risks that came with teaching that class and they should have taken reasonable care to prevent Lucas from getting a stressful breakdown. This is an absolute demand and a minimal standard that they should have met, however, they failed and Lucas was left on his own. Therefore, there is a fundamental basis through which the school should have been responsible. However, on the other hand, it can be said that Lucas committed an offence, hence, it will not appropriate to hold Walford High School responsible for his actions because he acted on his own initiative and as such, he has to be punished by law (which has occurred in the form of his conviction). On the other hand, Lucas can still argue that they owed him a fundamental obligation that they failed to discharge in the first place. Hence, there is some minimum claims he could make in relation to getting treatment to reverse the nervous breakdown and also the personal pain he suffered by going through the stress as that is an inalienable obligation they should have taken under all circumstances. Section 2: Tony’s Claim: Vicarious Liability This section of the paper will examine the likelihood of Tony bringing a successful claim for vicarious liability for the injuries he suffered in the hands of Lucas. Basically, a vicarious liability is a secondary obligation placed on an entity for the conduct of its agents13. Therefore, if found to be vicariously liable, Walford High School will have to pay damages to Tony for assaulting him, because vicarious liability comes with an obligation to restrain and control an employee14. Relevant Legal Rules The fundamental definition of a vicarious liability in employment related cases contains two main elements and this includes: 1. It is a tort committed by an employee15; 2. And it is committed in course of employment16 However, these two ideas and pointers are not so simple and they require some very detailed legal definitions and legal considerations before they can be really confirmed. In terms of determining whether an accused person is an employee, it is rather straightforward and a contract to provide services is often sufficient in invoking vicarious liabilities. A complication occurs when there is an issue of whether the individual in question is to be considered as an employee at the time the tort occurred or not. In the case of Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd and others17 a doorman or party crusher assaulted an individual but the nightclub refused to vicarious responsibility, arguing that the doorman was hired by a third party recruitment agency. However, the court held that since the recruitment agency had been dissolved, the nightclub was fully liable for the assault as they were effectively the employers. In terms of establishing vicarious liability, it must be shown that the employer in question was on the premises of the employer on “interest and for the benefit” of the employer in question18. In another case, an employee who threw a lit match carelessly whilst refuelling a vehicle in a petrol station was said to have done so in course of employment19. Also, there were some issues and matters that were considered to be private and not in the domain of employers. The case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd20 established that a boarding school teacher’s criminal conduct could lead to an institution facing vicarious liabilities. This was further consolidated in Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam21 when it was held that in cases of fraud, an employer could also be held liable. And this means that an employer must ensure that his employees are carrying out their actions legally. Critical Case Analysis From the facts of this case, it is apparent that Watford High School had some kind of obligation towards checking the conduct of their employee. This is because in the run up to the case, there was a situation in which their teacher was provoked in course of his work. Therefore, they had a obligation to ensure that the case was critically reviewed and assessed in order to prevent issues and problems in the future. In examining the facts of the case, it is imperative to assess whether Lucas could be held as an employee who was on the premises of Walford High School on the grounds of employment or not. This is quite complicated, but a review will show that he is an employee and has been employed for all this while. And although he had a six-week break endorsed by a doctor, he was on the premises for the interest of the employers as he was there to collect some papers. Once it can be proven that the papers were not for his own personal interest, then, it is sufficient to say he was on the premises on an employment-related task or activity. The assault was something that could be foreseeable by the employers. This is because they knew and ought to have known that there was some kind of provocation between Lucas, a teacher and Tony Bale. Therefore, they should have kept him under check whilst he was on the premises of the school. However, they failed and he got involved in the assault and injured Tony. Failure to control and evaluate the situation for the dangers involved is a fault that was reasonable foreseeable on the part of Walford High School. The implication is that there should have been a more significant set of actions that would have kept Lucas in control. Therefore it will be fair to impose a duty of care. And clearly, this duty of care was breached and Walford High Schools responsible for it and its implication to Tony Bale. Conclusion Tony Bale can take action against Walford High School because they had the obligation to control their employee. There was a duty of care expected of the school towards their teacher. This was foreseeable and they should have taken reasonable care to evaluate and detect these issues and problems. Since there was a failure to live up to this duty and an injury occurred, Tony Bale has the right to sue and claim damages from the school for his injuries. Bibliography Books Giliker Paul, Vicarious Liability in Tort Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010 Greene, Brendan, Course Notes: Tort Law London: Routledge, 2013 Holland, James & Burnett, Stuart, Employment Law Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014 Horsey Kirsty & Rackley, Erika, Tort Law Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010 Kidner, Richard, Casebook on Torts, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011 Cases Barber V Somerset County Council [2004] UKHL 13 Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board (1942) AC 509 Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48 Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33 Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 6 Hatton V Sutherland [2002] EWCA Civ 76 Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd and others [2006] EWCA Civ 18; [2006] IRLR 817 Hilton v. Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd. [1961] 1 W.L.R. 705 Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995] IRLR 35 Waters v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1997] ICR 1073 Wilson and Clyde Coal Company V English [1937] UKHL 2 Read More