Law of Tort. Majrowski v Guys and St. Thomas NHS Trust. Rylands v Coursework

Law of Tort. Majrowski v Guys and St. Thomas NHS Trust. Rylands v Fletcher - Coursework Example Therefore Ben is at liberty to pursue a claim against X Ltd. in tort for Amir’s harassment provided he can substantiate the requisite elements constituting harassment. The fact that Ben complained to management in the past and after the incident in which he was locked in a store closet will not exempt X Ltd. from liability under the principle of vicarious liability. Despite a formal warning, the harassment continued. The fact is, an employer can be vicariously liable even if the employer is not aware of the harassment leading to psychiatric injury. Since Ben can substantiate harassment for which the employer is vicarious liable under the House of Lords’ interpretation of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 , Ben will have to prove that the harassment took place in the course of employment. An employer can only be held vicariously liable for the conduct of an employee during the course of employment. In this regard, the Salmond test is instructive. The Salmond test provides that: An employer will be liable not only for a wrongful act of an employee that he has authorized, but also for a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master. 5 It can be inferred that since Ben complained in the past and Amir’s harassment only intensified, X Ltd. authorized the harassment and therefore Ben will be able to meet the definition of the Salmond test. As Lord Millett stated, the Salmond test would act as a guide for applying the law to different facts and circumstances.6 Vicarious liability under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 broadens the Salmond test in that the employee need only be acting during work hours and in the workplace.7 Moreover, it was established in Jones v Tower Boot Co. Ltd., that the Salmond Test may not be applicable in cases of harassment. The Salmond test may only be applicable in cases where an employee’s tortious conduct is directed toward a third party. However, when the employee’s conduct is d irected toward another employee, the employer will not escape liability. In this regard, the phrase â€Å"in the course of employment† will be interpreted liberally.8 In the final analysis, the test to be applied in establishing vicarious liability, is whether or not the behaviour complained of was such that it had an impact on the victim’s ability to perform his duties. Essentially, what this means is that once the harassment occurs during working hours and more especially in the workplace, the employer will be liable.9 In any event, there is no doubt that the bullying and/or harassment committed by Amir, did have an impact on Ben’s ability to work. He took three weeks off work and upon his return was subjected to further bullying which rendered Ben unable to return to work. Therefore in all the circumstances, Ben has a claim against his employer, X Ltd. for harassment at work under the principles of vicarious liability. B. Amir Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 provides for a new head of civil/tort claims in respect of harassment. Civil/tortious liability will arise when a person embarks upon a â€Å"course of conduct† that â€Å"amounts to harassment of another†. Although harassment is not defined by the 1997 Act, the House of Lords ruled that harassment would include causing anxiety or distress†. In fact, Section 3 of the 1997 Act permits the recovery of damages in respect of anxiety and distress resulting from harassment. Moreover Section 7 (2) provides that harassment includes â€Å"alarming the person or causing the person distress†. Section 7(2) would certainly include the silent telephone calls as well as the false report that Ben’s wife was in the emergency room of the hospital. On the facts of the case for discussion, Ben has certainly suffered what can be described as anxiety or distres