INTERNATIONAL SECTION continued When Is An Employer Liable For An Employee's Violence?


United Kingdom - In the conjoined cases of Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd; Wallbank v Wallbank Designs Ltd the Court of Appeal considered the issue of employer liability for the actions of violent employees. In both cases the Claimants were the victims of violence at work, inflicted by other employees.


In Weddell the Claimant was a manager who had phoned an employee to make a routine request to see if the employee was available to work a night shift. The employee was drunk, cycled into work and inflicted serious violence on the Claimant. The manager proceeded to make a claim against his employer, believing it to be vicariously liable for the employee’s actions.


To read more click here Protection From Aggression And Violence Is Important


United Kingdom - Ensuring workers are protected in terms of health and safety reaches further than just accidents which can occur with machinery or on building sites. Many jobs involve working with other people and members of the public and some of these can be difficult or challenging groups. It is an employer's responsibility to make sure appropriate measures are put in place to ensure the wellbeing of staff. A recent prosecution has uncovered an instance in which a firm failed to properly safeguard its staff against aggression and violence.


An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) was launched after a worker was kicked in the eye while working with people with learning difficulties. From this it emerged that the not-for-profit care organisation was not doing enough in order to protect its employees from such behaviour. The client who caused the injury in question was known to the company and had presented aggressive and violent behaviour in the past.


To read more click here


DECISIONPOINT – continued The Situation (continued from page 3)


The crew sat down and Foster joined them. Foster said he liked to fight when he was drinking, and that he had just come from a bar where he wanted to fight fourteen men. According to Morgan Foster claimed he was a professional boxer and challenged Morgan to box him. Morgan refused and Foster then stated that he could break Morgan’s arm with


a wrestling move called an "arm bar." Foster got up, grabbed Morgan’s arm and twisted it behind Morgan’s back. Foster then stopped and went back to his seat.


After leaving the diner Morgan testifi ed that he saw Foster outside in the parking lot. Morgan told Foster that he had hurt his arm, and asked him what he had done to it. He also warned Foster not to touch him again. Foster replied that he could show Appellant how to get out of the "arm bar." Appellant told Foster not to touch him. Foster grabbed Appellant's left arm anyway, and started pulling on it violently, until Appellant heard a "pop."


Morgan sued Union Pacific Railroad Co for negligence under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for the injuries he sustained to his left arm and shoulder from Foster's assaults.


Did the court rule in favor of Morgan holding Union Pacific Railroad Co. liable for negligence? To see what the court decided go to page 13


Want to Contribute an Article or Share Your Research or How You Handled a Situation?


Contact Barry Nixon at Barry@wvp911.com 7


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14