The Brief

29.04.2009

Supreme Court decision on employers vicarious Liability

The Supreme Court has issued its judgement in the case of Reilly –v- Devereux, The Minister for Defence, Ireland and the Attorney General.

The Plaintiff Mr Reilly was a member of the defence force. He took an action in the High Court for damages for personal injuries relating to alleged sexual assaults by a superior officer in the army. The High Court determined that the assaults had taken place and that the plaintiff had suffered post-traumatic stress. As the plaintiff had sued the Minister, Ireland and the Attorney General the Court had to determine whether they were vicariously liable for the acts of the superior officer, or, alternatively had been on notice that the assaults had taken place and therefore breached a duty of care and were negligent.

 
The High Court rejected his case finding that the army as employer was not vicariously liable for the wrongful actions of the superior office nor was it liable for failing to take appropriate measures to prevent such abuse as it had not been on notice.

Mr. Reilly appealed to the Supreme Court.   The Supreme Court has just issued its judgement dismissing him appeal. Critically on the issue of vicarious liability (where an employer is made liable for acts of its employee) the Court found that the nature of the employment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants was not such as would support a finding of vicarious liability given that the nature of the employment was not one which would have encouraged close personal contact where some inherent risks would exist, that there was no intimacy implicit in the relationship between the plaintiff and his superior officer nor was there any quasi parental role or responsibility for personal nurturing.   The plaintiff was an adult, married and was 23 when the incidents started.   The Court distinguished other cases sites which dealt with school and custody situations.   While the officer was a supervisor her was not in the same position as a teacher or boarding house warden, nor was he in the same position as a coach where physical contact may be normal. The Court did not extend the concept of vicarious liability in the present case as to do so would extend a “virtual new species of liability where the defendant would be liable for virtually every act or omission of an employee

 

© 2006 MJ O'Connor Solicitors | Disclaimer | Site managed and developed by ReganLowey