When I first started learning about the law, I was surprised by how much bosses or management figures could be legally responsible for. If your employees screw up, there are many scenarios where you’d be on the hook.
Frankly, it’s pretty scary.
The silver lining is that most people don’t have the time or funds to engage in legal action. Or they may not even know they have the grounds to pursue compensation.
It can seem ridiculous what legal precedents there are.
Here’s a quick tangent: As a property owner, you may be liable for a trespasser’s injuries. Yes, a trespasser.
While it may sound unreasonable, the conditions make it a bit better. Let’s say you’re the occupier of the property. You only have a duty of care towards a trespasser if you’re aware that they’re being exposed to a hazard. After all, it doesn’t make much sense for a trespasser to be punished with a serious injury or death when you could’ve warned them.
Employees Mess Up
Now let’s get back on track. As a business owner, you would want to know how responsible you are for your employees’ actions. We’ll highlight two cases to give you an idea.
Rose v Plenty (1976): Milk Delivery
TLDR: An employer prohibited their employees from giving lifts, but one of their employees brought a 13-year-old boy onto his van to help him collect money and deliver milk. During this process, the boy got injured. Was the employer liable for his injury?
Held: Yup. It has been established that employers are responsible for injuries suffered in the course of employment. The employee did perform a prohibited act, but that doesn’t change that he was doing his job at the time.
…this case falls within those in which the prohibition affects only the conduct within the sphere of the employment and did not take the conduct outside the sphere altogether. I would hold that the conduct of the roundsman was within the course of his employment and the masters are liable accordingly
Tom Denning, English barrister and judge
Mattis v Pollock (2003): Nightclub Misadventure
TLDR: A bouncer refused entry to a group of friends and acted violently towards them (the employer allowed the bouncer to use physical force to ensure compliance). The bouncer left, came back with a knife, and stabbed a man in the back.
Held: Employer responsible. There was a close enough connection between the bouncer’s job duties and the attack. The allowance of physical force despite knowing his violent tendencies was an additional element leading to this decision.
My other post with this format can be found here. I highlight cases in which police officers are (maybe surprisingly) held not to be legally responsible.