(Swansea County Court) While working as a catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, the claimant suffered injury in an accident caused by the negligence of a prisoner who was carrying out paid work under her supervision. She now sought damages from the Ministry
Held: The prisoner was negligent, but not the prison service. Though there were respects in which its relationship with the prisoner resembled employment, there was a crucial difference. Employment was a voluntary relationship, in which each party acted for its own advantage. The position regarding prisoners at work was different. The prison authorities were required to offer work to prisoners and, by the policy set out in the Prison Service Order, to make payment for that work. Those requirements were not voluntary. The provision of work was a matter of prison discipline, of prisoners’ rehabilitation, and possibly of discharging the prisoners’ obligations to the community. Although the work done by prisoners might contribute to the efficient and economical operation of the prison, the prisoners were not furthering a business undertaking of the prison service.
Keyser QC HHJ
[2013] EW Misc 1 (CC)
Bailii
Health and Safety Act 1974 48(3), Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 5(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Cox v Ministry of Justice CA 19-Feb-2014
Appeal against rejection of claim for personal injury. While working as the catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, the Claimant was injured in an accident caused by the negligence of a prisoner carrying out paid work under her supervision. The . .
At County Court – Cox v Ministry of Justice SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant was working in a prison supervising working prisoners. One of them dropped a bag of rice on her causing injury. At the County Curt, the prisoner was found negligence in the prisoner, but not the appellant for vicarious liability. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Vicarious Liability
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510046
