Injury Caused by Workplace Prank Not Employer's Responsibility
The Court of Appeal confirmed in the case of Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd 2022, that an employer was not liable for the personal injury sustained by a contractor when a practical joke went wrong.
Background
Mr Chell and Mr Heath were colleagues working on a site run by Tarmac. Mr Chell was a contractor supplied by a third party, and Mr Heath was Tarmac's employee. Tensions arose between Tarmac's employees and the contractors. Mr Chell raised concerns about the tensions with his supervisor, who in turn raised the issue with Tarmac.
A few weeks after Mr Chell raised his concerns, Mr Heath played a prank on him involving exploding pellet targets close to Mr Chell's ear. Mr Chell suffered a perforated eardrum, hearing loss and tinnitus as a result of the prank. Mr Heath was dismissed by Tarmac as a result.
Mr Chell brought a personal injury claim against Tarmac, arguing it was both directly and vicariously liable for Mr Heath's actions. The claim was rejected by both the County Court and the High Court. Mr Chell appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Vicarious Liability
The Court of Appeal rejected Mr Chell's appeal. It agreed there was not a sufficiently close connection between Mr Heath's actions and his work to make it fair, just and reasonable to hold Tarmac vicariously liable for the prank and resulting injury to Mr Chell. The explosive pellets were not Tarmac's equipment, nor used in any part of Mr Heath's work, and he was not authorised to use them. He was not working on the same task as Mr Chell, or supervising him at the time of the prank. The risk created by the prank was also not inherent in Tarmac's business.
Direct Liability
On the issue of direct liability, the Court of Appeal also found no reasonably foreseeable risk of injury to Mr Chell by Mr Heath's actions. If there was a duty of care, there was no breach by Tarmac. Whilst Mr Chell had reported concerns around tensions with Tarmac's employees, there was no indication Mr Heath would play the prank or exhibit violence towards Mr Chell. There was a general site rule prohibiting the intentional or reckless misuse of equipment. As Mr Heath had hit the pellets with a hammer, he had broken this rule.
Best Practice for Employers
Situations where workplace pranks result in injuries of the nature sustained by Mr Chell are, mercifully, rare. Had there been a closer connection between Mr Heath's actions and his work, Tarmac could have been held liable for the injury sustained by Mr Chell. Employers can nevertheless take steps to protect their position by ensuring adequate health and safety, bullying and harassment and disciplinary policies are in place, that appropriate training is rolled out, and that meaningful workplace risk assessments are maintained.
