Posted By Raymond Rapp Paul No I don't know of any cases and to be honest I would be surprised to find any. I think a civil claim is unlikely to succeed because and despite any misuse, a person does not wilfully try to injure themselves. A foolish act is just that and usually without malice. That said, the nearest I can remember to a similar case is one for nuisance. Where a farmer deliberately used his shotgun to annoy a neighbour. Although the court found the farmer was using the gun legally, the fact that it was done with malice meant that it was a nuisance. Probably not much help, but an interesting case nevertheless. Ray

Posted By paulw71 Raymond While I appreciate what you are saying, the arguement that an employee would not wilfully injure themselves so therefore cannot be held liable doesnt really make sense to me. Surely an employer doesnt wilfully injure an employee yet he can still be sued, foolish or not. Im not going to start quoting the health and safety at work act at you as i`m sure you know to what I am referring. If an employer has followed all legislation, provided all safety equipment possible etc etc all to great expense to himself, and then an employee (who has been trained) wilfully and deliberately ignores safety procedures bypassess a safety device or some such scenario and by that act injures himself. The employer is then left with all the financial losses that this brings and also possible loss of future buisness as well as increased insurance premiums. Surely he is entitled to seek compensation as the employee is in breach of legislation. Hope there is a legal whizz out there who can tell me definitively why this should not be so.

Posted By Coshh Assessor Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co (1957) An employee ran over his own father with a truck. The father successfully sued the employer on the grounds of vicarious liability. The company (or its insurer) was entitled to sue the employee to recover the costs.

Posted By Tabs Sorry, just to clarify, it was not a criminal damages issue, from memory it was being treated as accidental - so the employee was not being treated as guilty, just responsible.

Posted By Raymond Rapp Paul When an employee seeks redress for an injury sustained at work it is the employer's insurance (ELI) which pays for the costs - that's it purpose. However, if an employer was to seek redress for the negligence of an employee causing himself an accident, then the employee is unlikely to have sufficient resources to meet a successful claim. There are of course other arguments why a claim would be unsuccessful. It may seem unfair on the employer, but life aint supposed to fair. Ray

Posted By paulw71 All Many thanks for responding to this post. I understand where some of you are coming from with your posts but where the idea comes from that an employer wouldnt proceed with a case against an employee in case he bankrupted him comes from I dont know (I know it isnt fair but as someone has already mentioned life isnt fair). As for resources is it unfair to assume that an employee could have assets in one form or another. What I am really looking for is a solid legal arguement as to why an employer cannot or should not sue an employee.

Posted By Phil Rose Paul I can't think of a case, but I guess that pretty much anyone can (try to) sue pretty much anyone. The Lister/Romford case is interesting but may not quite fit what you are asking. In the main I don't think that it is worth suing 'Mr/Mrs average' as they are unlikely to have the means to pay any significant compensation to the plaintiff. You got me thinking though, so will have a trawl around and see if there is anything I can find Phil

Posted By Coshh Assessor Sorry - in Lister v. Romford I meant to say that the company was entitled to damages (of course anyone can have a go at suing anyone else if they want to). Whether they were ever paid or not I don't know.

Posted By Phil Grace Paul, I agree with PhilR's description of Lister. However, it is worth noting that following this case a market agreement was reached amongst the major EL insurers. Namely that they would not pursue a case against employees. Hence no further cases have been made. I guess that in theory an employer could sue for their uninsured losses as hinted in the original postings. We all know about the iceberg and the uninsured losses that are not recoverable from EL insurers (if we are talking about the EL scenario). However, as other posters have said the man in the street is unlikely to be insured, is likely to be a man of straw. Hence recovery could be doubtful and could lead to bankrupting individual - just think of the bad publicity that would bring..!! Phil

Posted By paulw71 Kirsty If you read the above postings you may notice that the scenario I described was one with which no fault lay with the employer. (employee was trained, competant, all reasonable precautions taken etc) I also asked for a valid legal reason or case study, to which you supply neither. You are obviously of the opinion that my motives for posting this question are less than honorable, however it was purely out of an interest in the subject that I asked. Many thanks for sharing you opinions, even though they had no relevance to what was being asked.

Posted By Brian R Interesting one. My thoughts are that an accident victim should not be able to claim compensation if all controls that were required by employer at work or for a given task (training, supervision, RA controls, PPE, maintenance, etc, etc) had actually been carried out. In L V R ice - it was a 3 way claim. The father claimed the employer for damages through the fault of another employee. If the incident accurred and injury was sustained to a person through the fault of himself - the employer has options to dismiss the employee for not following RA controls (following the SSOW or RA requirements) assuming they were adequate enough to control the risks. If the employer choose not to, then a written agreement should be in place so no civil action will commence at a later date.