Can employees be sued by another Employee for an injury sustained at Work. I know there is a duty of care, but will it always come back to the employer as being responsbile

We are at liberty to take action against anyone we choose - irrespective of the duty (legal or otherwise) of others.

Good answers, although in my opinion Alfasev is nearer the mark. Under the Tort of Negligence anyone can sue for loss or injury, the claimant will only be successful if a duty of care exists. There are a number of prescribed duties of care, however where one does not exist it's up to the court to decide whether the accused owes the claimant a duty of care. In reality a claim is unlikely partly because the principle of civil law is to sue those with the 'biggest pocket'. Therefore an individual will not have the means to pay for a substantial claim and the employer is more likely to carry the burden. The employer is required by law to have ELI and this is the most probable means of redress following a workplace injury to an employee - including vicarious liability claims. As always it is judged on a case by case basis.

Interesting responses - however I don't think vicarious liability has any bearing on the question posed. Can an employee sue another employee...... The answer has been posted previously- yes they can - under the law of tort (delict) of a civil wrong if the harm was caused due to negligence and there was a loss. However, a more interesting side of this is would the employer have to bear the legal cost of the defender, if it was an injury that happened at work. I guess this would be more of a hypothetical question.

We are pretty close to a complete answer. I agree with Kate that vicarious liability usually applies in such circumstances. This has been the case since the defence of common employment was consigned to the dustbin of history in 1948 ie employees worked in common, and this provided protection for the employer before vicarious liability saw them facing their just deserts as outlined by sidestep 45 above. [Another good case is Priestley v Fowler 1837.] So in the days of common employment you could only sue your impoverished colleagues and not your boss!! Great eh? You could possibly sue for breach of statutory duty in appropriate cases.[You will be stuck now as Strict liability has also be dealt a recent severe blow] Dumb move! In addition, just to complicate matters, whatever the action was that caused the injury, must be committed within the course/scope of employment. ie when doing your job even if negligently then the employer pays [as he/she should.] The position today-there are always exceptions and any good text book on Tort will give you these. Munkman's Employers Liability is one of the best. However, if the person injuring another was 'on a frolic of his/her own' ie acting completely outside the course of employment, then he/she could be sued by the injured party alone and the employer will not be vicariously liable in this situation. In these days of very limited legal aid that will, unless you are a TU member, be an unlikely scenario. And if both are members of the same union there may be some reluctance to support the action by the TU I imagine. On a bit of a loser here methinks. Even if you win the case getting the money is also hard Mind you, the phrase 'course of employment' has given rise to thousands of cases and numerous interpretations over many years. Regards Mike

Nobody has so far mentioned the situation of violence. A locker room attack by one employee on another may well create cause for civil action between the victim and assailant, most particularly if the cause is not work related, regardless of any criminal proceedings.

Ok clutching at straws a bit here but.... consider the following. A member of staff travels in another staff members vehicle to drive to a training course, both are on duty at the time and are attending the training as part of their requirement for work. The car crashes at the fault of the driver and the passenger sustains an injury. It is found that the vehicles insurance is invalid so the IP cannot claim on the insurance so the only option left is to sue the driver for damages. It may be concluded that the duty of care (negligence) was not owed by the employer but by the driver of the vehicle. So... an employee may sue another employee if they sustained an injury in the course of their work where the employer cannot be vicariously liable. Touch paper lit and retire for the backlash.

Toe, The motor insurers have a fund that compensates for injury and loss when an uninsured driver/vehicle creates a loss to a third party.

I don’t think so. I believe that they have a general duty to make sure that employees are fit to drive for work so they could in theory be held liable if the employee injured someone because they were not fit to drive and the employee had no insurance but as mentioned the motor insurance business have their own fund to compensate for drivers with no insurance so it would make sense (and be easier) to go for the driver not the employer in this case.

OK I give up. But its been a healthy debate. I guess my conclusions is that we know anyone can sue anyone, but it is nearly impossible for an employee to sue another employee if they were injured at work.

I disagree. I believe that part of the employer's duty of care inter alia is to ensure the employee has business insurance. At the very least it would show due dilligence on the part of the employer.