Introduction to Fire Safety Management

Introduction to Fire Safety Management
Figure 1.22 Employers are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees
Loss sustained as a result of the breach
The third and fi nal test of the tort of negligence is for
the claimant to prove that injury, damage or loss was
sustained as a result of the defendant’s failure to take
reasonable care. It is important that the loss sustained
is directly linked to the breach. Cases have been lost
where the loss that was undoubtedly sustained had not
been directly caused by the specifi c breach of duty.
The employer’s liability
Due to the nature of the common law relating to negligence
in the UK it is obvious that an employer is liable
to be sued for compensation for any loss or damages
suffered by his employees. It is for this reason that
employers in the UK are obliged by law to hold compulsory
‘employers liability insurance’. This insurance
covers the employers for claims from their employees for
up to £5 million. Employers will also take out public liability
insurance to cover themselves from claims made by
third parties who are seeking compensation for a loss,
although this is not compulsory.
Vicarious liability
An important principle in negligence cases is that of
vicarious liability. In essence this renders the employer
directly liable for the actions of his employees.
The reason why this principle is applied is to allow
the courts to order compensation from the employer
20
who is generally in a much better position to be able to
pay large amounts of compensation to the claimant.
To avoid being held vicariously liable, an employer
must be able to demonstrate that the employee who
acted negligently was doing so on his own volition.
The courts refer to the independent action by an
employee as his being on a ‘frolic of his own’ and in
these cases the employer cannot be held vicariously
responsible.
Defences against claims for compensation due to
negligence
In the cases of civil actions for compensation for negligence,
the defendant has available the following
defences:
➤ There was no duty owed to the claimant – the
defendant may claim the claimant was not a
neighbour
➤ There was no breach of the duty of reasonable
care – the defendant may claim that all that could
reasonably be done was done
➤ The loss was not caused by the breach – the
defendant may suggest that the loss suffered by the
claimant was not connected with the breach
➤ Volenti non fi t injuria – the defendant argues that
the loss was caused after the claimant had accepted
the risk voluntarily.