Posted By RobAnybody Hi, Just read the case below, & what I want to know is how does it impact on us? http://www.lawreports.co...RD/2006/CACIV/mar1.3.htm Any suggestions or ideas? Rob

Posted By Mark Talbot One has to ask why intervention was not sought. I would hate to suggest to anyone that has lost someone to suicide that they might have been able to do something (I lost a brother to suicide, so I speak from experience) *BUT* if the poor guy did not go to the doctor, did not seek help, did not confide, how was the employer in a position to prevent or intervene? It seems unjust to aportion blame if although forseeable it was not reported. If it was reported, and the man sought help, why did the help fail and would that not be sufficient to break the chain of causation? I think the desenting judge was right and I expect an appeal. My heart goes out to his family, but I think it is a poor precedent to be set ... six years is a long time to remain culpable for a treatable condition.

Posted By John Murgatroyd I think you're missing the point. He had an accident. The employer was negligent. The accident caused injuries which led to depression. The depression led to suicide. The suicide was consequent to injury, which was due to negligence of the employer. http://www.bailii.org/ew...s/EWCA/Civ/2006/331.html

Posted By Raymond Rapp It is a fasinating case and reminds of a similar case that I was involved with when I was a TU Rep. A colleague was suffering from psychological depression having been assaulted by a member of the public whilst at work. He claimed that the company did not support him and this led to his depression and was eventually declared unfit to return to work. I and other colleagues gave him support during this period, but it is difficult to continue indefinately. Now take the scenario of the aformentioned case and it is quite clear there could be an onerous duty on the employer if my colleague harmed himself. However, how long could an employer or anyone esle come to that, be expected to support him? Six years after the initial event seems far too long in my opinion and not surprisingly I think this a bad judgement and precedent. Regards Ray

Posted By Merv Newman Maybe my posting above was a little too ironic and obscure. Yes, we MUST keep contact with old, sick or injured employees. Too often it's "out of sight, out of mind" Kieran's advice on professional counselling is good but, as said, it is not always available. Some large companies I know employ a qualified nurse who's job is just that : keep in contact with people and offer them whatever help they will accept. Continuing contact alone will help and speed recovery : "my boss actually cares about me !" Perhaps this can be considered cynically as part of "injury management" ie methods to avoid or reduce the lost time. Personally I consider it to part of the "human" side of human relations. Too often I have asked "and how are they now?" and the response has been "Dont know". Makes me spit. And I can cite accidents which have happened partly because the supervisor did not ask "how's the wife today ?" Double spit. Mildly scatalogical exclamation. Look. Apart from the legislation, acops and so on, HR is THE most important part of our jobs. Discuss. I dare you OK. Yes I DID cut the lawns yesterday and now I have a leg of lamb to get roasting. (not the "6-hour" recipe. Wife wants skin to be nice and crispy) But it's still the cheap cote de rhone. Guests, who'd have 'em ? Even if they do bring supplies of bisto and streaky bacon. And cheddar. Have a nice Sunday. Merv (300 km drive to next client this afternoon) Second but less mild scatalogical reference. Time for the Wheatabix.

Posted By Frank Hallett I do wholehertedly agree with both Merv and Kieran - but there is another side to this quite legitimate employers role in minimising the consequences of the absence [however it may have been caused] that requires considerable thought and attention. In a previous life I was an employee of an organistion that historically and currently has a disturbingly high level of distrust in the employers motives for the contact with employees out of the workplace. If not managed extremely sensitively and carefully it is very easy for the absentee to percieve a totally different set of motives to those put forward by the employer for the percieved intrusion into their non-work life. Crass and blundering attempts at maintaining contacts, no matter how well-meaning, will never succeed and are frequently counter-productive; anything that comes across as bullying [in any form or context] or as intruding into an individuals personal life will meet with outright rejection from the start. I'm not advocating that the employer doesn't try - I was in a position where I recognised that appropriate support from my then employer could have been of value to us both - I am saying that those who will be tasked with maintaining the contact and providing support must be properly trained and effectively supported to fulfill the stated goals - and it must be with the employees active participation [major culture changes in most of industry by employers and employees required]. Frank Hallett

Posted By Merv Newman Thanks Kieran and Frank. Kieran, I was picking up on your comment on the delay caused by going through your GP. And also combining it with my feeling that there may be too many employers out there who are negative about counselling and so reluctant to contact a qualified person. Leaving it up to the employee to sort their own problems out. As H&S in the UK I was expected to "home visit" anyone off work after an accident. In reality we never had an "on-the-job" injury in my time so the few visits I made resulted from "off-the-jobs". In fact, the spirit of these visits was not to offer assistance or counselling (wot me ?) but to persuade the injured person to get back to work as soon as possible. After that the responsibility was delegated to the plant nurse (mandatory above 200 employees) who did an extrememly good job. Telephoning and chatting and offering a home visit and assistance even if the absence was due to an illness or a family problem. And she allways threw me out of the office before calling someone. We always offered help with transport to and from work for people who could not drive - taxi or a colleague. And we also paid for the taxi for them to go shopping on Saturdays. Didn't happen often, but that is part of caring for your friends and colleagues. Kieran, your advice please, you have much more experience than I : I feel that someone will recover more quickly, mentally and physically, if they can get back to the normal work/social environment rather than sitting at home watching Gardener's World and Blue Peter. What do you think ? Merv

Posted By Merv Newman Kieran, thank you for that. I have had to argue my case against medical doctors who are sometimes, I think, too protective. "The (patient) will not want to show weakness in front of colleagues" I can understand that but prefer to think that, with support, the (patient) may very well like to display "strength through adversity" which can be very healing. As you say, case by case. And person by person. But my St Johns certificate (very expired) does not carry much weight. Merv

Posted By Robert K Lewis I actually think that the two judges were applying the egg-shell skull rule in an exceptionally well thought through manner. Depression is well recognised as a response to life changing accidents and this person had a particular susceptibility which was not known previously - but this does not change the facts as J Mu so concisely summarised. It is too easy sometimes to think that once employment has terminated following an accident that is the end of the employers responsibility. As others so clearly discussed above the DoC for the consequences of the accident have to persist until such time as the consequences are dealt with and not at a convenient cut off date for the employer. Bob

Posted By RobAnybody All, Firstly, my condolences to Mrs Corr & family & friends, I hope this case can be resolved to their satisfaction as soon as possible. My question was intended to open debate on the finding & I,m glad to see it has. Speaking to H&S Professionals over this last weekend I was given the impression by them that they felt that although the court found against the employer due to... "in an action founded on negligence the question was not whether the particular outcome was foreseeable but whether the kind of harm for which damages were sought was foreseeable; and, if it was, whether the eventual harm was nevertheless to be regarded on the ground of public policy as too remote."... & it was found that... "it was the depression which had driven the employee to take his own life. On the evidence it clearly had."... it was felt that a similar case would have little impact on them as professionals. The rationale seems to be that if they have documented all their concerns prior to the incident then they won't be held liable. It then becomes an HR issue to which they are not involved with as HR is the domain of others. But, if you read the transcript from the web address given earlier (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/331.html) then it may be possible to infer that the family & dependants of ANY employee who suffers depression, as a result of either an incident in the work place or poor H&S or HR practices, who then goes on to take their own life may be able to take an action against those responsible. Is it enough that we as H&S practioners merely record our findings & pass them on, make recommendations & pass them, provide training, etc. Do we now have to take a longer/wider view of the world. Do we have to become the concience of HR & others in ensuring that these people are followed up & offered the right sort of help? How much responsibility for this type of incident can we expect to shoulder? I have been reading the reports on this case & it seems to me that no-one can say either yes or no to this. I personally take the view that we cannot be expected to carry through a comprehensive care package for these individuals but we do still have a duty of care to highlight this & other cases to those in the workplace who can make a difference. I, for one, intend to keep a very close eye on this case & highlight it with our HR department (partly to get buy-in from them but also to raise the issue) & get them to take a view as I can guarantee that they won't even be aware of it yet. If there are any really sharp legal eagles out there then let us have a "definative" answer. I know that this case was brought under section 1 of the Fatal Accident Act 1976 but that is no reason for H&S practitioners to dismiss it as I know a few have. A duty of care is still a duty of care. Rob

Posted By Frank Hallett Hi Y'all I know that it's a week later; but I've been busy! Merv, Kieran and others - my observation about the employees peception of the process was to try to underline that even the most caring and solitious schemes can fail if the recipient of the care & consideration perceives it as something other than in their best interests. Kieran, I didn't consciously consider the trades union aspect of my comment; howver, I will ackowledge that Trades Unions can, and should, have an active beneficial role in minimising absences and accelerating returns to health and full employment. Frank Hallett

Posted By Kieran J Duignan In relation to the risk involved in offering support to an injured employee, the legal basis is clear: to the extent that an employee is unwilling to accept the offer of appropriate professional support from a chartered psychologist, registered counsellor or registered psychotherapist, he or she is very, very, very unlikely to have a valid claim against an employer. By effectively subtracting to a suitably qualified professional, the employer can fully discharge their responsibility to manage the risk to the employee 'as far as reasonably practicable'. In 'the real world', actually, very few employees decline the offer of such help from their employer, although in my experience some prefer to pay out of their own pocket for professional counselling rather than allow their managers, at any level, know anything about what they regard as private. While I recognise that this may challenge a notional - and, in my view, ouotdated - boundary betweeen 'HR' and 'Safety', I'm not sure I quite understand what may be 'scary' about this. As a Fellow of the CIPD as well as a CMIOSH, I know of no reliable, valid evidence that HR professionals are better trained than safety professionals about assessing risks of injury or illness associated with work-related stress; even today, 27 April 2006, their training in safety/health risk management is very inadequate. I would appreciate Hilary's brief account of what she finds 'scary' about stress risk assessment and management by contrast with, e.g. managing risks associated with chemicals or musculo-skeletal disorders.