Employers Liability - Vicarious Liability and Psychiatric illness Essays
Justifications for the imposition of liability on an employer, stress related illnesses at work
(See below for second essay on employer’s vicarious liability)
The Law Commission, in their Consultation Paper on Liability for Psychiatric Illness, commented “On the
one hand, there are those who are sceptical about the award of damages for psychiatric illness. They
argue that such illness can easily be faked; that, in any event, those who are suffering should be able to
‘pull themselves together’; and that, even if they cannot do so, there is no good reason why defendants
and, through them, those who pay insurance premiums should pay for their inability to do so. . . . On the
other hand, medical and legal experts … have impressed upon us how lifeshattering psychiatric illness
can be and how, in many instances, it can be more debilitating than physical injuries.”
Explain the circumstances in which an employer may have a liability in negligence to an employee for a
stress related illness caused by the pressures of work.
Critically evaluate whether the law in this area strikes a fair balance between providing adequate
protection for employees and the legitimate concerns of their employers.
Your answer should consider all the elements of negligence that an employee is required to satisfy to
succeed in a claim for stress related illness against their employer.
Introduction
If an employee had suffered a stress related illness at work, they could seek a remedy by suing under the
tort of Negligence. The usual elements of negligence apply and case law has clarified many of the
principles. The law is a controversial area, potentially due to a stigma surrounding mental illness coming
from those ‘who argue such illness can easily be faked.’ The perceived rise of compensation culture may
also contribute to this. But as the Law Commission remarked, psychiatric illnesses can be life shattering,
and it is important that victims are compensated from negligent acts committed by employers. In this
essay I will:
Duty of care
● Established duty situation that an employer owes its employees a duty to take reasonable care
of their safety at work. This is a non-delegable duty (Woodland v Essex) and covers four
situations as confirmed in Wilsons & Clyde Coal v English
● One of these duties is to provide a proper system of work and supervision which is the widest
and most frequently invoked branch of the employer’s duty. As confirmed in Walker v
Northumberland County Council, it can extend to cover a medically diagnosed psychiatric illness
caused by stress. Case facts: Social worker given heavy workload and repeatedly asked for help
and assistance and given none so suffered a nervous breakdown. Landmark case and was the
first case where an employer was liable for stress at work.
Justifications for the imposition of liability on an employer, stress related illnesses at work
(See below for second essay on employer’s vicarious liability)
The Law Commission, in their Consultation Paper on Liability for Psychiatric Illness, commented “On the
one hand, there are those who are sceptical about the award of damages for psychiatric illness. They
argue that such illness can easily be faked; that, in any event, those who are suffering should be able to
‘pull themselves together’; and that, even if they cannot do so, there is no good reason why defendants
and, through them, those who pay insurance premiums should pay for their inability to do so. . . . On the
other hand, medical and legal experts … have impressed upon us how lifeshattering psychiatric illness
can be and how, in many instances, it can be more debilitating than physical injuries.”
Explain the circumstances in which an employer may have a liability in negligence to an employee for a
stress related illness caused by the pressures of work.
Critically evaluate whether the law in this area strikes a fair balance between providing adequate
protection for employees and the legitimate concerns of their employers.
Your answer should consider all the elements of negligence that an employee is required to satisfy to
succeed in a claim for stress related illness against their employer.
Introduction
If an employee had suffered a stress related illness at work, they could seek a remedy by suing under the
tort of Negligence. The usual elements of negligence apply and case law has clarified many of the
principles. The law is a controversial area, potentially due to a stigma surrounding mental illness coming
from those ‘who argue such illness can easily be faked.’ The perceived rise of compensation culture may
also contribute to this. But as the Law Commission remarked, psychiatric illnesses can be life shattering,
and it is important that victims are compensated from negligent acts committed by employers. In this
essay I will:
Duty of care
● Established duty situation that an employer owes its employees a duty to take reasonable care
of their safety at work. This is a non-delegable duty (Woodland v Essex) and covers four
situations as confirmed in Wilsons & Clyde Coal v English
● One of these duties is to provide a proper system of work and supervision which is the widest
and most frequently invoked branch of the employer’s duty. As confirmed in Walker v
Northumberland County Council, it can extend to cover a medically diagnosed psychiatric illness
caused by stress. Case facts: Social worker given heavy workload and repeatedly asked for help
and assistance and given none so suffered a nervous breakdown. Landmark case and was the
first case where an employer was liable for stress at work.
