Free Employment Advice - Foreseeability: Contributory Negligence

W was employed by R from 1962 at its Derby plant until his dismissal in 1994. In 1991 he reluctantly accepted a promotion which increased his basic salary but reduced his overall earnings because of loss of overtime.

By 1993 W’s work performance deteriorated. He took sick leave for anxiety. His sick notes recorded an anxiety state and a connection with stress at work. In October 1994, W was dismissed on the grounds of incapability. He complained of unfair dismissal. That claim was settled.

W claimed compensation for stress-induced psychiatric illness caused by R’s negligence in imposing an excessive workload and excessive work pressure.

It was agreed that, by early 1993 and in 1994, W was suffering from anxiety and depression of which workplace stress was the most likely contributory factor. He had frequently attended the factory clinic, had a history of chest pains and headaches, and was experiencing stressful events in his personal life, but none of this was significant in the light of the stress he was under at work.

W’s claim succeeded.

The Assistant Recorder made the following points:

• There should be no distinction between the duty to protect workers’ mental and physical health.

• The standard of care must be what is reasonable, taking into account the magnitude of risk of injury which was reasonably foreseeable, the seriousness of the consequences of injury and the cost and practicability of preventing the risk.

• The volume of work was not, in itself, a measure of stress without a consideration of the mechanisms adopted by the employer to see that the volume was achieved by the employee. This included targets imposed and the express and implied sanctions used to enforce them.

• W’s anxiety and depression stemmed from the stress resulting from his workload and pressure to meet performance targets. His work up to the end of 1993 involved significant pressure, enough to alert an employer to the danger facing employees.

• An employer must be aware that employees might not wish to admit their difficulties, and must watch for signs that damaging stress is being experienced but not complained about.

• After W’s return to working 1994, he was showing uncharacteristic signs of being unable to cope with his job. R should have ensured that he was well enough to work, or adjusted his duties or offered the help necessary to avoid the danger of dangerous levels of stress.

• Total damages of £55,383 would be awarded. This was after a reduction of one-fifth for W’s contributory negligence for denying his condition.

Note:

This decision was described as being the first successful claim for workplace stress against a company, rather than an institutional body. The case was decided before the judgment of the Court of appeal in Sutherland v Hatton.