piBlawg

the personal injury and clinical negligence blog

A collaboration between Rebmark Legal Solutions and 1 Chancery Lane

Stroke Caused By Beauty Facial Case Settles

Claims against negligent beauticians and the like are not altogether uncommon. The injuries tend to be dermatological in nature consequent of some allergic reaction to an untested product. But who would have thought it possible, let alone likely, for someone to suffer a stroke as a result of a beauty facial treatment? Tragically that is what happened to Elizabeth Hughes after her visit to the spa at the Eastwell Manor Hotel. What should have been a weekend treat resulted in a serious stroke that left her disabled for life. Her claim, which otherwise would have been tried in the High Court this week, settled for an undisclosed amount. How did it happen? The medical experts on both sides were agreed that the stroke occurred as a result of a dissection to the carotid artery. The dissection was in all probability caused when beauty cream was massaged onto the sides of her neck by the beauty therapist. The issue was whether she was negligent or had applied an excessive degree of force. Unlike sports injury or deep tissue massages, where there are reported cases of stroke, this was a novel situation. This type of injury had not been encountered previously by beauty therapists. Mrs Hughes who was employed by the NHS as a nurse was left significantly disabled. Her disabilities prevented her from returning to employment in the nursing sector. The case has been watched closely by the beauty industry and the press. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nurse-disabled-stroke-after-allegedly-6798935) Elizabeth Hughes was represented by Edward Bishop QC and Kiril Waite at 1 Chancery Lane, instructed by Ciaran McCabe at Moore Blatch Legal Resolve.

“Safe sex” – Part 3

Sex activity is “in every sense a personal choice”.   Ordinarily this truism might not find its way into legal submissions and certainly not submissions by the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. However, ordinarily injuries at work do not arise from a “vigorous” sex session in a motel bedroom.   Regular readers will recall the story so far in relation to this unfortunate “on the job” injury which raises important questions for personal injury and employment lawyers in the UK about the types of activities which can properly be said to arise out of or in the course of employment.    The respondent, a female public servant sued the Australian federal government after being injured while having sex on a work trip in a motel bedroom. The respondent’s partner’s evidence was that they were “going hard” when a glass light fitting came away from the wall above the bed striking her in the face and causing both physical and psychological injuries.   The appellant claimed compensation because her injuries were caused “during the course of her employment” as she had been instructed to travel to and spend the night in a motel in a small town in New South Wales ahead of a departmental meeting early the next day.   The respondent, Comcare, the Australian government's workplace safety body, rejected the claim on the grounds that sexual activity “was not an ordinary incident of an overnight stay like showering, sleeping or eating”. That decision was upheld by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.   Nicholas J. allowed the appellant’s appeal - see PVYW v Comcare (No 2) [2012] FCA 395. Comcare appealed to the full court of the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) which dismissed its appeal – see Comcare v PVYW [2012] FCAFC 181.   In particular, the FCA rejected Comcare’s submission that an injured employee must show both that the injury occurred at a place where he or she was induced or encouraged by the employer to be and that the activity from which the injury arose was induced or encouraged by the employer or was implicitly accepted. It held that the potential conditions for liability were not conjunctive in the sense that an activity test should be super-imposed on a place test. There was no combined or two-stage test. There was a single test which may be satisfied in either one of two ways.   Comcare appealed to the High Court of Australia which on 30 October 2013 by a majority of 4-2 allowed the appeal and rejected the respondent’s claim for compensation – see Comcare v PVYW [2013] HCA 41.   The judgment of the majority was given by Chief Justice French AC. The essential enquiry in each case was “how was the injury brought about?” Sometimes the injury will have occurred at and by reference to the place where the employee was. Usually, however, it will have occurred while the employee was engaged in an activity.   The majority held at [38] that “when an activity was engaged in at the time of injury, the question is: did the employer induce or encourage the employee to engage in that activity?  When injury occurs at and by reference to a place, the question is: did the employer induce or encourage the employee to be there? If the answer to the relevant question is affirmative, then the injury will have occurred in the course of employment”.    It follows that where an activity was engaged in at the time of the injury, the relevant question is not whether the employer induced or encouraged the employee to be at the place where the injury ocurred because such inducement or encouragement is not relevant to the circumstances of the injury.   Put another way, an employer is not liable for an injury which occurs when an employee undertakes a particular activity if the employer has not in any way encouraged the employee to undertake that activity but has merely required the employee to be present at the place where the activity is undertaken.   Two justices dissented. Bell J. held at [106] that “consideration of the connection between the circumstances of the injury and the employment relation would be to add complexity at the cost of certainty and consistency”. Gageler J. agreed holding at [159] that “The particular activity in which the respondent was engaged at the time she was injured does not enter into the analysis”.     The High Court’s decision means that in Australia an employer will not become, in reality, an insurer for an employee in respect of any activity carried out at a place which the employee has been induced or encouraged by the employer to be. It also provides useful guidance to UK lawyers who may be called upon to deal with unusual work place related injuries.   The decision also restores certainty and structure to the law of employers' liability in Australia – something which was sadly lacking in the motel light fitting in question!  

“Safe sex” – Part 2

Regular readers will recall the story so far in relation to this unfortunate “on the job” injury which raises important questions about activities which can properly be said to arise out of or occur in the course of employment.    The appellant, a female public servant, sued the Australian federal government after being injured while having sex on a work trip in a motel bedroom. A glass light fitting came away from the wall above the bed as she was having sex striking her in the face and causing injuries to her nose, mouth and a tooth as well as “a consequent psychiatric injury” described as an adjustment disorder.   The appellant’s partner’s evidence was that they were “going hard” and that he did not know “if we bumped the light or it just fell off”.  He added, not unreasonably, that he was “not paying attention because we were rolling around”.   The appellant claimed compensation because her injuries were caused “during the course of her employment” as she had been instructed to travel to and spend the night in the motel in a small town in New South Wales ahead of a departmental meeting early the next day.   The respondent, Comcare, the Australian government's workplace safety body, rejected the claim on the grounds that sexual activity “was not an ordinary incident of an overnight stay like showering, sleeping or eating”. That decision was upheld by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.   However, on appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (FCA), the appellant’s counsel submitted that the accident was in truth “no different than slipping over in the shower”. In addition, “lawful sexual activity” should now be considered reasonable behaviour in a hotel room by an employee as “it's not the 1920s”.   Counsel for ComCare responded that people need to eat, sleep and attend to their personal hygiene but “you don't need to have sex”.   The judge, Nicholas J., allowed the appellant’s appeal - see PVYW v Comcare (No 2) [2012] FCA 395. The judge held that “While it is true that in determining whether an injury occurred in the course of employment, regard must always be had to the general nature, terms and circumstances of the applicant’s employment, there was nothing of that description in the present case which could justify a finding that the interval or interlude was interrupted by the applicant’s lawful sexual activity” – see [54] of the judgment.   Comcare appealed to the full court of the FCA which on 13 December 2012 dismissed its appeal – see Comcare v PVYW [2012] FCAFC 181.   In a carefully reasoned judgment the full court, presided over by Keane CJ., rejected Comcare’s essential submission that “an injured employee who claims to have been injured during an interval or interlude between periods of actual work must show both that the injury occurred at a place he or she was induced or encouraged by the employer to be and that the activity from which the injury arose was induced or encouraged by the employer, or was implicitly accepted”.   The court held that that the potential conditions for liability were not conjunctive in the sense that an activity test should be super-imposed on a place test. There was no combined or two-stage test. There was a single test which may be satisfied in either one of two ways. Further, the concept of, here, “a frolic of her own” was one which applies to wrongful acts. The court also made clear that “the views of the respondent’s employer about the respondent’s (lawful) activities were irrelevant, whether or not those views (if sought) may have reflected disapproval or indifference” – see [50] – [55] of the judgment.   This must be right. Why should being injured whilst having sex be any different to the claimant being injured whilst working out on one of the exercise bicycles or cross trainers in the motel’s gym provided that the injury occurred within an overall period or episode of work and negligence can be shown. Further, why should the employer approve when and how an employee has sex any more than where she chooses to have her breakfast?   Comcare is considering an appeal to the High Court, Australia's highest legal tribunal. In the meantime, common sense has prevailed, the judgment provides useful guidance on the scope of workplace injuries and I, for one, will in future double check the structural integrity of motel light fittings.  

Strict liability in workplace claims - the end of the line?

    The Government announced today that it will be introducing legislation before Parliament as early as next month amending the Health and Safety at Work Act to abolish strict liability for breaches of Health and Safety regulations. If the legislation is passed, employers will only be liable where fault is proved. By way of example, this would mean that in future there may be no strict liability for defective work equipment under Regulation 5 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998; or for exposure to dangerous substances under Regulation 7(1) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. This stems from recommendations to abolish strict liability in last year’s Löfstedt review of Health and Safety legislation. This specifically criticised the result in Stark v Post Office [2000] ICR 1013, as well as Allison v London Underground [2008] EWCA Civ 71 and Dugmore v Swansea NHS Trust [2002] EWCAA Civl 1689. Strict liability has been part of the employers’ liability landscape since the Factories Acts – see for example Galashiels Gas Co Ltd v Millar [1949] AC 275 HL (cited in Stark v Post Office). If passed, this will really be a sea-change in employer’s liability law, so keep watching this space for further updates…