Posted By RobAnybody I have just had a perplexing converstaion about an employees duty of care. It seems that a recent case(?) has shown that an employee cannot be prosecuted for a failure of duty of care but the responsibility falls on the employer. Seems odd to me that even with vicarious liability this could be the case. Can anyone enlighten me ? Rob :-$

Posted By Dave Wilson remember duty of care , vicarious liability etc is at Common law whereas it is the Criminal law where you get 'prosecuted' beyond a reasonable doubt and civil cases are on the balance of probaability 'innocence or gulit do not play a part'

Posted By Tony Brunskill As I read this the amendment prevents an action for Tort Breach of Statutory Duty, it does not absolve employees from their criminal or civil responsibilities to anyone. In honesty I am unsure of my ground but perhaps one of our legal beagles would clarify.