Mattis v Pollock

Last updated

Mattis v Pollock
The Drake.jpg
Court Court of Appeal
Decided1 July 2003
Citation(s)[2003] 1 WLR 2158
Keywords
Vicarious liability, course of employment, close connection

Mattis v Pollock [2003] 1 WLR 2158 is an English tort law case, establishing an employer's vicarious liability for assault, even where it may be intentional or pre-meditated. Previously, judges had been unwilling to impose liability where assaults were motivated by revenge or vengeance; [1] it was established however that following the decision of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd , [2] that where an assault is closely linked to the duties of an employee, the employer should be held vicariously liable. [3]

Contents

Facts

Mr Cranston, an employee of Flamingos night club, in London, was employed as a bouncer to keep order at the club's doors, and to break up scuffles and fights. [4] On 18 July 1998, an incident occurred involving a customer, Mr Fitzgerald, and Mr Cranston, who threw a friend of his across a room. It was submitted that Mr Pollock had given Mr Cranston instructions to "impress upon Mr Fitzgerald that Mr Cranston was prepared to use physical force to ensure compliance with any instructions that he might give to Mr Fitzgerald or any of his companions". [5]

Subsequently, on 24 July, Mr Mattis was attending the club with a friend, Mr Cook. Mr Cranston was instructed that Cook should be barred from the club, and was ejected. A week later, Mr Mattis attended the club with other friends, at around 11:15pm. Mr Cook turned up with Mr Fitzgerald, at around 1am, and upon seeing them, Mr Cranston violently assaulted Mr Cook and one of his friends. [6] Upon witnessing this, Mr Mattis attempted to pull Cranston from Cook, whereupon several other customers surrounded Cranston, who was forced to flee. Upon arriving back at the club, he grabbed Mr Mattis, and stabbed him in the back. [7] As a result, Mr Mattis was rendered paraplegic.

Judgment

The trial judge found the club's owner, Mr Pollock, was not liable for the stabbing of Mr Mattis. This event was not part of one continuous string of events; as Mr Cranston had fled home, leaving his duties, he was no longer within the course of his employment. [8] He stated that:

"The lapse of time and intervening events were, in my judgment, of such a nature that it would not be right to treat the event culminating in the stabbing of Mr Mattis as one incident commencing in the club." [9] Also according to the Times Law Reports

The doorman was employed by the defendant to keep order and discipline. However, he was encouraged and expected to perform his duties in an aggressive and intimidatory manner, which included manhandling customers. That aspect of the evidence was not sufficiently addressed by the judge.

The reality was the defendant should not have been employing the particular doorman at all, and certainly should not have been encouraging him to perform his duties as he did [10]

The Court of Appeal rejected this, with Judge LJ stating:

The stabbing of Mr Mattis represented the unfortunate, and virtual culmination of the unpleasant incident which had started within the club, and could not fairly and justly be treated in isolation from earlier events, or as a separate and distinct incident. Even allowing that Cranston's behaviour included an important element of personal revenge, approaching the matter broadly, at the moment when Mr Mattis was stabbed, the responsibility of Mr Pollock for the actions of his aggressive doorman was not extinguished. Vicarious liability was therefore established. Accordingly the appeal on this ground must succeed. [11]

Taking note of the recent decisions in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd and Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam , [12] Judge LJ did not look to establish that the stabbing had occurred in the course of Cranston's employment, but whether the stabbing was closely connected to his work, and instruction [3] It was of particular importance that Mr Cranston had been instructed by Mr Pollock, and was known to be, violent and intimidating toward customers:

Mr Pollock chose to employ Cranston, knowing and approving of his aggressive tendencies, which he encouraged rather than curbed, and the assault on Mr Mattis represented the culmination of an incident which began in Mr Pollock's premises and involved his customers, in which his employee behaved in the violent and aggressive manner which Mr Pollock expected of him. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bouncer</span> Type of security guard

A bouncer is a type of security guard, employed at venues such as bars, nightclubs, cabaret clubs, stripclubs, casinos, hotels, billiard halls, restaurants, sporting events, schools, concerts, or movie theaters. A bouncer's duties are to provide security, to check legal age and drinking age, to refuse entry for intoxicated persons, and to deal with aggressive behavior or disobedience with statutory or establishment rules.

In law, liable means "responsible or answerable in law; legally obligated". Legal liability concerns both civil law and criminal law and can arise from various areas of law, such as contracts, torts, taxes, or fines given by government agencies. The claimant is the one who seeks to establish, or prove, liability.

Sir William Aldous was an English judge and a judge in the Gibraltar Court of Appeal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

<i>Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office</i>

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd[1970] UKHL 2, [1970] AC 1004 is a leading case in English tort law. It is a House of Lords decision on negligence and marked the start of a rapid expansion in the scope of negligence in the United Kingdom by widening the circumstances in which a court was likely to find a duty of care. The case also addressed the liability of government bodies, a person's liability for the acts of third parties that he has facilitated, and liability for omissions.

Enterprise liability is a legal doctrine under which individual entities can be held jointly liable for some action on the basis of being part of a shared enterprise. Enterprise liability is a form of secondary liability.

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd[1970] EWCA Civ 2 is a leading English contract law case. It gives a good example of the rule that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded, without reasonable notice before. Also, it was held that an automatic ticket machine was an offer, rather than an invitation to treat.

<i>London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd, [1992] 3 SCR 299 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on privity of contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English criminal law</span> Legal system of England and Wales relating to crime

English criminal law concerns offences, their prevention and the consequences, in England and Wales. Criminal conduct is considered to be a wrong against the whole of a community, rather than just the private individuals affected. The state, in addition to certain international organisations, has responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes and common law, and why some forms of behaviour are considered criminal. The fundamentals of a crime are a guilty act and a guilty mental state. The traditional view is that moral culpability requires that a defendant should have recognised or intended that they were acting wrongly, although in modern regulation a large number of offences relating to road traffic, environmental damage, financial services and corporations, create strict liability that can be proven simply by the guilty act.

Occupiers' liability is a field of tort law, codified in statute, which concerns the duty of care owed by those who occupy real property, through ownership or lease, to people who visit or trespass. It deals with liability that may arise from accidents caused by the defective or dangerous condition of the premises. In English law, occupiers' liability towards visitors is regulated in the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. In addition, occupiers' liability to trespassers is provided under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. Although the law largely codified the earlier common law, the difference between a "visitor" and a "trespasser", and the definition of an "occupier" continue to rely on cases for their meaning.

Turberville v Stampe (1697) 91 ER 1072 is an English tort law case concerning vicarious liability, also known as the respondeat superior doctrine.

<i>Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd</i> English case

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd[1988] UKHL 12 is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change of position. This secured unjust enrichment as the third pillar in English law of the law of obligations, along with contract and tort. It has been called a landmark decision.

Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. This liability has expanded in recent years following the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd to better cover intentional torts, such as sexual assault and deceit. Historically, it was held that most intentional wrongdoings were not in the course of ordinary employment, but recent case law suggests that where an action is closely connected with an employee's duties, an employer can be found vicariously liable. The leading case is now the Supreme Court decision in Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, which emphasised the concept of "enterprise risk".

<i>Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd</i>

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 is an English tort law case, creating a new precedent for finding where an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of their employees. Prior to this decision, it had been found that sexual abuse by employees of others could not be seen as in the course of their employment, precluding recovery from the employer. The majority of the House of Lords however overruled the Court of Appeal, and these earlier decisions, establishing that the "relative closeness" connecting the tort and the nature of an individual's employment established liability.

<i>Rose v Plenty</i>

Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141 is an English tort law case, on the issue of where an employee is acting within the course of their employment. Vicarious liability was tenuously found under John William Salmond's test for course of employment, which states that an employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that was authorised.

<i>Bazley v Curry</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Bazley v Curry, [1999] 2 SCR 534 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of vicarious liability where the Court held that a non-profit organization may be held vicariously liable in tort law for sexual misconduct by one of its employees. The decision has widely influenced jurisprudence on vicarious liability outside of Canada.

<i>Majrowski v Guys and St Thomas NHS Trust</i>

Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34 is a UK labour law case holding that an employer will be vicariously liable for the harassment of an employee by another.

K v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in the South African law of delict and South African constitutional law. It was heard by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2005, with judgment handed down on June 13. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J presided. W. Trengove SC appeared for the applicant; PF Louw SC appeared for the respondent. The applicant's counsel was instructed by the Women's Legal Centre, Cape Town. The respondent's attorney was the State Attorney, Johannesburg.

<i>Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd</i>

Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 is a judicial decision of High Court of Justice of England and Wales in relation to the banker-customer relationship, and in particular in connection with the bank's duties in relation to payment instructions which give rise, or ought to give rise, to a suspicion of fraud.

<i>Hickey v McGowan & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Hickey v McGowan & ors, [2017] IESC 6 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court. This case concerns child abuse and vicarious liability. The second defendant sexually abused the plaintiff in class, in the presence of the other students. This happened at least once a week. Four boys who witnessed the abuse in the class gave evidence which was accepted by the High Court. It was determined that there must be a "close connection" between the wrongful act and the actions that one had engaged the offender to perform in order for one to be made liable for the act of another.

References

  1. ↑ Warren v Henlys Ltd [1948] 2 All ER 935
  2. ↑ Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215
  3. 1 2 [2003] 1 WLR 2158, at 19
  4. ↑ [2003] 1 WLR 2158, at 6
  5. ↑ [2003] 1 WLR 2158, at 7
  6. ↑ [2003] 1 WLR 2158, at 11
  7. ↑ [2003] 1 WLR 2158, at 15
  8. ↑ [2003] 1 WLR 2158, at 16
  9. ↑ [2002] EWHC 2177, at 77
  10. ↑ "Mattis v. Pollock (t/a Flamingo's Nightclub)". Justis. 2003. Retrieved 29 November 2016.
  11. ↑ [2003] 1 WLR 2158, at 32
  12. ↑ Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48
  13. ↑ [2003] 1 WLR 2158, at 33
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.