52 year old teacher who had complained of work overload

Generally, people who have been injured in an accident or incident that was partially or entirely due to an employer's negligence towards their duty of care can claim accident at work compensation or make a personal injury claim. However, there are a number of nuances to this law, as the following case studies will attest:

-        Barber v Somerset County Council

This 2004 case study involved a 52-year-old teacher who had complained of work overload. After taking a workplace absence because of stress and depression, the teacher suffered a nervous breakdown in the workplace.

In this personal injury compensation claim, it was determined that the school breached their duty of care towards their employee and that this led to the teacher's injury. The school should have tried to ease the claimant's problems when they had begun to complain about their health, with the claimant separately speaking to each member of the schools' senior staff before the breakdown.

-        Jobling v Associated Diaries

In this 1982 accident at work claim, it was determined that a workman who suffered from a spinal injury that caused him to lose 50% of his former earning potential. Four years after this accident at work, he developed an unrelated back condition that rendered him completely incapable of work. Citing previous case law, the judge said the claimant should be allowed to recover compensation extending beyond the diagnosis date of his back injury. The employer appealed this decision, with the House of Lords eventually criticising the earlier case study and said that the employer should only be liable for four years of the defendants' lost earnings.

-        Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company

Doughty was an employee of Turner Manufacturing Company when an asbestos cover fell into a cauldron of hot liquid. This caused the asbestos to react with the molten chemicals and in the cauldron, which led to an explosion, burning the claimant. Although it was known that the lid could have fallen, spilling the liquid and potentially scalding someone, it was not known at the time that could have caused an explosive chemical reaction.

His employer was not found to have acted negligently in this accident at work claim. The employer had protected the claimant against the risk of the top falling into the cauldron and liquid spilling over the side, and the explosion was deemed to be unforeseeable. Turner Manufacturing Company was therefore not liable for damages in this 1964 accident at work compensation claim.

-        Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence

A howitzer was accidentally fired, which damaged the hearing of an artilleryman who was serving in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. In this 1996 case study, it was determined that the Ministry of Defence did not have a duty of care towards the employees, in the same way that soldiers do not owe a duty of care towards each other on the battlefield. Safe working systems cannot be reasonably imposed in battle conditions. Therefore, the claimant loses their accident at work claim.