||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 373 (Oct)
|| EWHC 2177 (QB)
||Queen's Bench Division
Judge Richard Seymour QC sitting as a judge of the High Court
||Paul Rose QC and Timothy Meakin (instructed by Leigh, Day & Co) for the claimant.
||Benjamin Browne QC and Roger Harris (instructed by Davies Lavery) for the defendant.
||24 October 2002
Negligence - Duty of care - Employer - Duty of care in respect of acts of employee.
Where an employee of the defendant attacked the claimant, and that attack was motivated by a desire for revenge, it was held that in the circumstances there was not a sufficiently close connection between the employment of C by the defendant and the assault on the claimant for it to be fair, just and reasonable for the defendant to be vicariously liable to the claimant for the consequences of that attack. Further, the principle that the law limited liability to those consequences which were attributable to that which made the act wrongful was not confined to cases in which the question was the scope of a duty of care not to cause economic loss. It did not, however, extend to consequences flowing from the inability of C to restrain himself from seeking revenge for an incident which occurred during his employment, which revenge was sought when he was not acting in the course of his employment.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary