The employer appealed a finding that it was responsible in negligence to a staff member for stress related injury at work. The claimant had worked in the coal industry for 20 years, but she had then been made redundant. The defendants took her on as their Technical Support and Training Manager. Her reference said that she ‘would not be particularly good in a highly stressful environment but she is good at dealing with IT users, training and communication.’ She had a pre-existing emotional vulnerability but this was not apparent to the defendants.
Held: Lord Phillips MR said: ‘An employer will be in breach of duty to an employee if the employer subjects the employee to severe pressure of work in circumstances where the employer knows, or ought reasonably to foresee, that this is likely to cause the employee to suffer some form of breakdown which results in psychiatric injury. Happily most employees are sufficiently robust to withstand the stress of a heavy workload. Thus it is normally necessary to demonstrate, before breach of duty can be established, that the employer had particular reason to apprehend the danger that such injury would be caused to the individual employee.’ The defendants did not have reason to apprehend the danger and accordingly were not liable when she broke down.
Judges:
Lord Phillips MR
Citations:
Times 30-Jun-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 1296, [2004] IRLR 164
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
Cited by:
Cited – Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc CA 19-Jan-2005
The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186535