Can an Employer Be Liable if an Employee Sustains an Injury at a Work Party?

The Facts

Cancer Research held a Christmas party for its staff. Visiting scientist Mr Bielik attempted to pick up Cancer Research's employee Mrs Shelbourne on the dancefloor, but lost his balance and dropped her, resulting in a serious back injury.

Mrs Shelbourne sued Cancer Research for damages for personal injury, on the basis that it either was negligent or was vicariously liable for Mr Bielik's actions.

The County Court found that Cancer Research was not liable. Mrs Shelbourne appealed to the High Court.

The High Court's Decision

Mrs Shelbourne suggested that a range of measures should have been taken by Cancer Research in discharging its duty of care towards her, including a written declaration signed by all attendees that they will not behave inappropriately, a risk assessment accounting for all eventualities including those resulting from inappropriate behaviour, and trained staff to keep watch for trouble at the party.

The High Court concluded that a reasonable person would not regard such requirements as socially appropriate ones to impose on organisers of any Christmas party. There had been a risk assessment which took account of the fact that alcohol would be served and focussed on ensuring that partygoers did not return to the laboratories after the party started. There was nothing to suggest that the staff members managing the party had been inadequate to monitor the event.

Cancer Research did owe its employee a duty of care, however the extent of this duty was to be determined by the context. There had been two previous parties held there, and no instances of inappropriate behaviour resulting from alcohol. It was reasonable for the risk assessment and organisational arrangements to be informed by what had happened previously, and Cancer Research had taken reasonable steps and had not breached its duty of care to Mrs Shelbourne. The High Court therefore found that Cancer Research was not negligent.

The High Court found that Cancer Research also was not vicariously liable for the actions of visiting scientist Mr Bielik. Whilst their relationship was capable of giving rise to vicarious liability, whether or not it did so depended on the nature of Mr Bielik's role and whether there was a sufficient connection between his role and wrongful conduct so as to make it right for Cancer Research to be liable for that conduct.

Mrs Shelbourne argued that Cancer Research had organised the party ultimately for its own benefit, by way of improving employee morale, and that therefore the nature of Mr Bielik's role included interacting with fellow partygoers. The High Court disagreed, finding that this was not a description of the average work party that a reasonable person would recognise, and that Mr Bielik's field of activities was limited to his research work. There was not a sufficient connection between the research activities entrusted to him by Cancer Research and his wrongful behaviour at the party, and so Cancer Research was not vicariously liable for the wrongful behaviour.

Best Practice

Employers should note that, although in this case the employer was found to be not liable for its employee's injury at a work social event, these cases will always turn on their particular context.

Had there been previous incidents of misbehaviour or injury at the employer's parties, the court might have found that the employer's duty of care to its employees required a more extensive risk assessment and more extensive measures to be put in place at the event, in which case the employer might have been found negligent. Also, if the employees had at the time been acting within the field of activities entrusted to them by the employer, for example if the event were a networking event rather than a purely internal occasion, then the employer might have been found vicariously liable.

For more information, please contact Eleanor Boyd in our Employment Law team on 020 7665 0940, or complete the form below.