Free Employment Advice - Psychiatric Injury: Foreseeability: Duty of Care

G started working for N in 1998 as a health visitor. She worked 30 hours a week. In June 2001 she was off work because of depression caused by work pressures. In December 2001 she returned to work on a phased basis and resumed her normal hours in January 2002. In June 2002, G’s colleague was away from work with long-term sickness. G asked for additional assistance with her workload. Her employer asked her to arrange cover herself. She was not able to do this. Her health deteriorated and in June 2002 she suffered a relapse of her depressive illness. In August 2002 she returned to work. She was given assurances that her workload would not increase. These assurances were not fulfilled. Her workload was increased. In February 2003 she went off sick. Her employment was terminated on the grounds of ill-health in October 2003. She was obliged to take early retirement.

G claimed compensation from N for its failure to take reasonable steps to avoid exposing her to a workload which endangered her health. N denied breach of contract or negligence and argued that any psychiatric harm had not been foreseeable. It was also argued on behalf of N that G’s injury was likely to have been the result of chronic fatigue syndrome and had been causally unrelated to the allegations of negligence.

Decision:

1. The defendant was under a duty of care to provide G with a reasonably safe system of work.

2. The psychiatric harm which she had suffered was foreseeable, given the nature and extent of G’s work and that she had a known vulnerability to depression.

3. Applying Hatton v Sutherland, N had been negligent in that it had failed to replace members of staff who worked with G, notwithstanding that there was a bank of staff available.

4. An organisation of the size of N should have been able to provide health visitor cover. It should have offered support and reassurance to G.

5. G’s psychiatric injury in June 2002 and February 2003 had been caused by N’s breach of duty, that is, her excessively heavy workload.

6. It was not the case that G was never fit to return to work. She would have made a full recovery in due course, but for N’s negligence.

7. The claim would be reduced by 20 per cent because of G’s vulnerability to this type of injury.

8. The award of damages would be £39,000.