- Vicarious liability for, and risks assessing against, employee’s horseplay? (Chell v Tarmac Cement)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Court details
PI & Clinical Negligence: Though it has been said that vicarious liability is ‘on the move’, Chell v Tarmac Cement marks the common law drawing a further line against imposing vicarious liability for so-called horseplay cases in the workplace. That employment provides the occasion for such actions is not of itself enough. The Court of Appeal also held that generally direct liability should not be imposed for lack of a risk assessment against such ill-judged acts. The threshold for determining that one should have been taken will involve a high degree of reasonable foreseeability of risk. Written by Patrick Limb QC, Ropewalk Chambers, Nottingham.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial