In English law, employer’s liability is the employer’s own duty to take reasonable care for employees’ safety—typically framed as competent staff, adequate plant and equipment, a safe system of work, and a safe place/premises. It is distinct from vicarious liability, which attributes an employee’s tort to the employer.
The duty is personal and may be non-delegable in substance: an employer must organise operations, training, supervision, and equipment so far as reasonably practicable to avoid foreseeable harm. Health and safety regulations and industry standards inform the standard of care even where they do not create a standalone civil cause of action.
Early focus on systems, training records, maintenance logs, and risk assessments streamlines liability analysis, insurer engagement, and settlement strategy.
See also: Vicarious liability; Non-delegable duty; Negligence; Occupiers’ liability; PPE; Manual handling; Health and Safety at Work etc.
January 7, 2026
A railway fireman was killed walking along a prohibited railway line route instead of the designated safe path whilst proceeding to his next work assignment. The House of Lords held that despite contravening employer's orders, the accident arose out of and in course of employment under Section 1(2) of the...
October 5, 2025
A fireman was injured when a heavy jack, hastily loaded unsecured on a lorry during an emergency call to free a trapped woman, shifted and crushed his leg. He sued his employer in negligence. The Court of Appeal held there was no breach of duty, emphasising the higher risks justified...
October 3, 2025
Mr Stark, a postman, was injured when his Post Office bicycle’s front brake stirrup broke due to an undiscoverable defect. Although the employer was not negligent, the Court of Appeal held that regulation 6(1) of the 1992 Work Equipment Regulations imposed an absolute duty, making the Post Office liable. Facts...
October 3, 2025
A Co‑operative milk roundsman, contrary to express instructions, employed a 13‑year‑old boy to help deliver milk. The boy was injured through the roundsman’s negligent driving. The Court of Appeal (by majority) held the employer vicariously liable, as the boy’s work furthered the employer’s business. Facts Mr Christopher Plenty was employed...
September 30, 2025
A steel erector died after falling from a tower when not wearing a safety belt. His employers had failed to provide one, but evidence showed he had never worn safety belts when available. The House of Lords held that the breach of duty did not cause his death, as he...
September 30, 2025
A brickworks employee contracted dermatitis after working in hot, dusty conditions. His employers failed to provide shower facilities, which would have materially reduced the risk of disease. The House of Lords held that materially increasing the risk of injury was equivalent to materially contributing to causing the injury, allowing the...
September 24, 2025
Two brothers, both qualified shotfirers, deliberately tested explosives without taking proper shelter in breach of statutory regulations and employer's orders. When an explosion injured them, one sued the employer for the other's negligence. The House of Lords held that volenti non fit injuria provided a complete defence where the employer...
September 24, 2025
Four employees claimed damages for psychiatric illness caused by workplace stress. The Court of Appeal established practical principles for employer liability in occupational stress cases, allowing three appeals and dismissing one. The court held that foreseeability of psychiatric harm to the specific employee is the threshold question. Facts Four appeals...
September 22, 2025
Police officers who suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after assisting victims at the Hillsborough disaster claimed damages from their employer. The House of Lords allowed the appeals, holding that the officers were secondary victims who could not recover for psychiatric injury as neither the employment relationship nor their role as helpers...
September 22, 2025
Workers developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos dust by multiple employers in breach of their duties. The House of Lords held that where science cannot determine which employer's breach caused the disease, proof that each materially increased the risk of contracting the disease is sufficient to establish causation. Facts...
September 22, 2025
Mr Corr suffered severe physical and psychological injuries in a workplace accident caused by his employer's negligence. He developed severe depression and committed suicide six years later. The House of Lords held that his suicide was a foreseeable consequence of his depression and the employer remained liable under the Fatal...
September 16, 2025
Workers contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos by multiple employers. The House of Lords held that defendants liable under the Fairchild exception should bear only several liability proportionate to their contribution to the risk, not joint and several liability for the whole damage. Facts These three conjoined appeals concerned...
September 15, 2025
Two employees died in a gas-filled well after their employer negligently used a petrol-driven pump without adequate warnings. A doctor who attempted to rescue them also died. The Court of Appeal held the employer liable for all three deaths, establishing that rescuers injured while responding to dangers created by negligence...
September 15, 2025
Employees in the knitting industry claimed compensation for noise-induced hearing loss from exposure to noise levels between 85-90dB(A) before 1990. The Supreme Court examined employer liability under common law negligence and the Factories Act 1961, determining that compliance with the 1972 Code of Practice provided a defence for average employers...
April 17, 2026
National Case Law Archive
April 17, 2026
National Case Law Archive
April 17, 2026
National Case Law Archive