Page 40 - Misconduct a Reference for Race Officials

Reynolds v Strutt & Parker LLP (2011)
In this case the employer organised an activity away day for its employees which
included a bicycle race. There was a high degree of rivalry between two of the
employee competitors which resulted in one sustaining severe head injuries. For
various reasons the Judge held that the event was not ‘in the course of
employment’, however, the relationship of organiser and attendee meant that a
duty of care was owed by the employer to the employee. The duty on the
defendant was to take such reasonable care as any reasonable employer would
take (a) to ensure that employees were reasonably safe in engaging in the
activities that the employer had arranged and (b) in the making and management
of the arrangements that were being organised … that duty of care includes the
making of adequate and suitable risk assessments. In the instant case there was
effectively no risk assessment at all; the main fault was the failure to involve the
park manager in any assessment process. Had this been done it would have
revealed the recommendation of the Health and Safety Executive that helmets
should be worn.

The Judge went on to add that:-

“whilst the reward of employees by employers in ways such as that
chosen in this case is a desirable activity I am quite satisfied that requiring
employers to take reasonable precautions for their employees’ safety will
not discourage employers from doing it, or discourage employees from
taking part. On the contrary fun activities are likely to be more attractive if
employees are assured that their safety has been properly considered”.

Ruth Geary v JD Wetherspoon Plc (2011)
Here the claimant, whilst visiting a public house with some colleagues, fell to a
marble floor whilst sliding down the bannisters in a ‘Mary Poppins’ style
sustaining serious injuries. The House of Lords dismissed the claimed. Lord
Hoffmann stated ‘in a situation in which the injuries were caused by an inherently
risky act on the part of the claimant, it is only the existence of particular facts or
specific reliance that will lead to a finding that the defendant assumed a
responsibility to the claimant. Generally the cases show that a defendant does
not owe a duty to regulate the claimant’s own activities for the claimant’s own
benefit’.

38