Employers are normally responsible for the actions of their employees when at work…this is called ‘vicarious liability’. However, the concept does not necessarily extend to people who assume positions of responsibility who are not employees.
This issue arose in a personal injury case in which a pupil was seriously injured during a swimming lesson arranged by her school. The lesson was provided by an external contractor and supervised by a lifeguard who was an employee of that company.
The injured swimmer brought a claim against the local authority (which ran the school) on the basis that the school was liable for her injuries because it could not delegate the duty of care it owed to her as a pupil. She claimed that the school was responsible for the negligence of the lifeguard and the company that employed him.
The local authority accepted that it owed a common law duty of care to the girl – in this case, the duty to take reasonable care to safeguard her health and welfare. It argued, however, that this meant, in essence, that it must take steps to ensure that the contractor was reasonably competent. Its contention was that it had complied with its responsibilities in this regard and what it had done was what a reasonable parent would do.
The girl’s claim failed. The court held that it was reasonable for the local authority to delegate the duty of care. To allow the claim would be contrary to public policy and lead to an unjustifiable extension of a school’s duties to its pupils.
Partner Note
Annie R Woodland [by her litigation friend Ian Woodland] v Swimming Teachers’ Association and others [2011] EWHC 2631 (QB).