Employers' Liability
Tort Law > Employers' Liability
You are examining whether an employer has breached a duty to an employee and must remember that this is the employer's own personal and non-delegable duty - one that cannot be escaped by hiring someone else to do the work. This fundamental distinction from vicarious liability is tested repeatedly on SQE1.
What Is Employers' Liability?
Employers' liability in tort is the personal duty owed by an employer to each employee to take reasonable care for their safety at work. Unlike vicarious liability (where the employer is liable for the acts of others), employers' liability arises from the employer's own breach of duty.
The duty is non-delegable - the employer cannot escape liability by delegating the task to a competent contractor or employee. It was established in Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1938]. Understanding negligence duty breach causation and remoteness provides the foundation, and knowing vicarious liability will help you distinguish the employer's own duty from liability for an employee's acts.
Key Principles for SQE1
-
The fourfold duty (Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English [1938]): The employer must provide: (1) competent staff; (2) adequate plant and equipment; (3) a safe system of work; and (4) a safe place of work.
-
Competent staff: The employer must select and supervise employees carefully and must not expose employees to risks from incompetent or violent colleagues.
-
Adequate plant and equipment: The employer must provide properly maintained tools, machinery, and equipment. The Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 deems the employer liable if an employee is injured by defective equipment provided by the employer, even if the defect was the manufacturer's fault.
-
Safe system of work: The employer must establish and enforce safe working procedures, including training, supervision, and safety instructions.
-
Safe place of work: The employer must ensure the workplace itself is reasonably safe, including access and egress.
-
Non-delegable duty: The duty is personal to the employer - it cannot be discharged by delegating to an independent contractor (McDermid v Nash Dredging [1987]).
-
Psychiatric harm at work: Employers owe a duty to protect employees from foreseeable psychiatric harm caused by workplace stress (Hatton v Sutherland [2002]; Barber v Somerset County Council [2004]). The employer must have reasonable foresight that the particular employee was at risk.
Exam tip
Don't confuse employers' liability with vicarious liability—they are entirely separate. Employers' liability is the employer's own duty arising from the fourfold duty; vicarious liability makes the employer answerable for an employee's tort. Also, always remember that the duty is non-delegable: even if the employer hires a competent contractor to do the work, the employer remains liable for breach. For workplace stress, the critical question is whether the employer had reasonable foresight that this particular employee was at risk, not whether stress is generally a workplace hazard.
How This Appears in SQE1 Questions
SQE1 questions test whether you can identify which limb of the fourfold duty has been breached and whether the duty is non-delegable. A common trap is confusing employers' liability (the employer's own duty) with vicarious liability (liability for another's tort). Questions may also test workplace stress claims - remember, the employer must have had reasonable foresight that the specific employee was at risk, not just that stress is a general workplace issue. This is a classic SQE1 trap.
Quick Example Scenario: An employer provides employees with cutting equipment purchased from a reputable manufacturer. An employee is injured when the equipment malfunctions due to a manufacturing defect. The employer argues it is not at fault because the defect was the manufacturer's.
Under the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969, the employer is deemed liable to the employee for injury caused by defective equipment provided for the purposes of the employer's business, where the defect is attributable to the fault of a third party (the manufacturer). The employer may then seek a contribution from the manufacturer, but the employee's claim lies against the employer.
Common Mistakes Students Make
- Confusing employers' liability (employer's own duty) with vicarious liability (liability for another person's tort).
- Forgetting that the duty is non-delegable - the employer remains liable even if it delegates the task to a competent third party.
- Overlooking the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 and assuming the employer can avoid liability by blaming the manufacturer.
- Applying the wrong foreseeability test for workplace stress - the question is whether harm to this particular employee was reasonably foreseeable, not whether stress is a general risk.
Quick Summary
- Employers owe a non-delegable personal duty covering competent staff, safe equipment, safe system, and safe workplace
- The duty cannot be discharged by delegating to a contractor
- Under the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969, third-party defects are deemed the employer's fault
- Workplace stress claims require foreseeability of psychiatric injury (Hatton v Sutcliffe)
- Contributory negligence and volenti are available defences
Want to test this now? Try a few SQE1-style questions below before moving on.
Test Yourself
Test yourself
Quick check questions based on this article.
Question 1
Scenario
A warehouse worker was employed by a distribution company. His duties included loading heavy pallets onto delivery trucks using a manual pallet jack. The company had not provided any manual handling training to its warehouse staff. A risk assessment had been carried out two years previously but had not been updated. The company's warehouse manager had received complaints from several employees about back pain related to the manual handling work. The manager forwarded the complaints to the company's head office but no action was taken. The company had considered purchasing mechanical lifting equipment but decided against it on grounds of cost. One morning, the worker was loading a pallet that weighed approximately 300 kilograms. As he manoeuvred the pallet jack, he felt a sharp pain in his lower back and collapsed. He was diagnosed with a prolapsed disc. Medical evidence confirmed the injury was caused by the cumulative strain of manual handling over several months. The worker had previously worked as a personal trainer and maintained a high level of physical fitness. He had not reported any back pain to his employer before the incident. The company argues it was not aware of any risk to this particular employee. The worker brings a claim against the company.
Which of the following best describes the basis on which the worker is most likely to succeed?
Question 2
Scenario
A warehouse operative is employed by a logistics company. The operative's duties include loading heavy pallets onto delivery vehicles using a forklift truck. The company provides forklift training to all operatives upon hiring. The operative completed the standard training course three years ago but has not received any refresher training since. The company recently introduced a new type of pallet that is heavier and has a different centre of gravity from the pallets previously used. The company did not update its manual handling guidelines or provide additional training in relation to the new pallets. A risk assessment conducted when the new pallets were introduced identified the change in weight and centre of gravity but recommended only that operatives 'take additional care'. The operative, while loading one of the new pallets, loses control of the forklift truck due to the unexpected shift in the pallet's centre of gravity. The pallet falls and strikes the operative, causing serious back injuries. The operative had mentioned to a supervisor two weeks earlier that the new pallets felt different to handle, but no action was taken. The operative has five years' experience operating forklift trucks and had an unblemished safety record prior to the incident. The operative brings a claim against the company.
On what primary basis is the company most likely to be found liable to the operative?
Question 3
Scenario
A law firm employs a trainee solicitor. The trainee is required to work late on a regular basis, often until 10pm, in a poorly lit office on the fourth floor of the building. The building's stairwell lighting has been intermittently failing for three weeks, and the trainee has reported the issue to the office manager twice, both times by email. One evening, while leaving the office at 9.30pm, the trainee falls down the darkened stairwell and fractures her ankle. The stairwell lighting had failed again earlier that day and had not been repaired. The building is leased by the law firm, and the lease places responsibility for internal maintenance on the tenant. The trainee had been given a small torch by a colleague the previous week but had left it on her desk that evening. The office manager had acknowledged the lighting issue in a reply email but stated that the building maintenance team had been contacted. No repair had been carried out at the time of the accident. The trainee's supervising partner was aware that trainees regularly worked late in the building. The law firm had recently updated its health and safety policy document but had not conducted a risk assessment of the stairwell.
Which of the following best describes the law firm's liability to the trainee?
Practice with full exam-style questions
Related Topics
- SQE1 Tort Law: Complete Guide
- Negligence: Duty, Breach, Causation and Remoteness
- Economic Loss and Negligent Misstatement
- Vicarious Liability
Practise Employers Liability Questions for SQE1
Want to solidify your knowledge? ActusPrep provides realistic SQE1 questions tailored to this topic.
👉 Try our free demo: https://actusprep.com/demo 👉 View plans and pricing: https://actusprep.com/pricing