Mattis v Pollock [2003] 1 WLR 2158

KEY POINTS

• Vicarious liability in the context of employment becomes a pivotal issue when examining this incident involving a doorman at a nightclub. The issue at hand is about determining whether the club owner can be held vicariously liable for the doorman's actions.

• Vicarious liability typically applies when an employee commits wrongful acts within the scope of their employment. Thus, an examination of the circumstances surrounding the altercation and subsequent stabbing is imperative to ascertain the extent to which the doorman's actions can be attributed to his employment responsibilities.

• Courts often scrutinize the nature of the employee's actions, assessing whether they were furthering their employer's business at the time of the incident. This analysis is crucial in determining the extent of the club owner's vicarious liability and the potential legal consequences that may follow.

FACTS

• Gerrard Pollock (‘Defendant’), owner of a nightclub, employed an unregistered doorman, C, who had a history of aggressive behavior. The Defendant specifically hired C to act aggressively toward customers.

• On the night in question, David Wilson Mattis (‘The Claimant’) and his friends initially gained entry to the club without issues. However, when another group of the Claimant's friends arrived later, C, having ejected a member of this group on a previous occasion, prevented their entry. In the ensuing struggle, C used a weapon, likely a knuckleduster or cosh, hitting at least two individuals.

• This altercation led to a violent reaction from others present, resulting in C being struck and hit with a bottle. C then left the premises, followed by a group of people, excluding the Claimant. Having reassembled near the club, the Claimant and his friends decided to go home. Unexpectedly, C reappeared armed with a knife and ran towards the group. While others fled, the claimant remained, and C seized and stabbed him in the back, causing severe injuries, including a severed spinal cord that left the claimant paraplegic.

• C was subsequently convicted of causing grievous bodily harm, while the Defendant was convicted of employing an unlicensed door supervisor. The Claimant initiated legal proceedings, alleging vicarious liability for his injuries and a breach of the duty of care owed to him by the Defendant.

• The judge, however, ruled that the sequence of events leading to the stabbing did not constitute a single incident. The judge concluded that there wasn't a close enough connection between C's employment and the stabbing to warrant vicarious liability. As a result, the claim was dismissed. The Claimant appealed this decision.

JUDGEMENT

• The appeal was allowed, emphasizing a broad approach to the test for vicarious liability in employer-employee relationships. The determination hinged on whether the employee's actions were closely connected to what the employer authorized or expected during employment, assessing the fairness of holding the employer vicariously liable for the Claimant's damage.

• In situations where violence was anticipated in an employee's duties, the likelihood of establishing such acts falling within the employment scope was increased. In this case, the doorman, employed to maintain order aggressively, exhibited violence both inside and outside the premises. His return to the nightclub's vicinity during working hours was motivated by a desire for revenge, directly linked to earlier events in the club.

• The judgment criticized the trial judge's narrow approach. It asserted that even when the Claimant was stabbed, the Defendant's responsibility for the aggressive doorman's actions persisted, establishing the Defendant's vicarious liability. The manner of the doorman's employment indicated a duty of care owed by the Defendant to the Claimant personally.

COMMENTARY

• The vicarious liability case involves a violent altercation and a subsequent stabbing at a nightclub. The club owner's responsibility for the doorman's actions is called into question, prompting legal proceedings by the injured Claimant.

• Given the doorman's aggressive employment role and the encouragement to act forcefully, the appeal court found a clear connection between his actions within and outside the premises. His return to seeking revenge while still within working hours directly linked to prior events in the club established the employer's vicarious liability.

• The judge's initial narrow approach was criticized, affirming that even when the Claimant was stabbed, the employer's responsibility for the doorman's actions persisted. Furthermore, the manner of the doorman's employment indicated a duty of care owed to the Claimant personally, solidifying the Defendant's liability.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• Defendant employed an unlicensed bouncer, C, who stabbed a person at the club, Plaintiff.

• Plaintiff sued Defendant for the damages as vicariously liable for C.

• CA held that Defendant was liable following the broad approach, there was sufficient connection between the tortious act and what the employer expected of him or authorised him to do, and it would be “fair and just” to impose such a liability, taking into account the employer-employee relationship.

Judge LJ

• The test is: “was the assault “so closely connected” with what Defendant authorised or expected of C in the performance of his employment as doorman at his nightclub, that it would be fair and just to conclude that Defendant is vicariously liable for the damage”.

• The fact that C would have been expected to use violence in the course of his employment anyway suggests that the relationship between the assault and the expected/authorised conduct was sufficiently closely connected.