This case involved an appeal against the dismissal of the plaintiff's personal injuries claim.

The plaintiff had been employed by the first named defendant and claimed that between May 2009 and February 2011 there were five separate incidents involving staff she supervised. She claimed that they had acted abusively and aggressively towards her during the course of their employment and that over time this caused her severe stress, anxiety, humiliation, pain and suffering that she was compelled to leave her employment.

She alleged that after the first incident she reported it to her employer but no action was taken to prevent recurrence. The plaintiff claimed that the non- action by her employer following her complaint, and subsequent complaints, resulted in a situation where the staff she supervised were able to behave in a threatening manner toward her without consequence. The plaintiff submitted that the failure of the first defendant to act appropriately constituted negligence on its part as the plaintiff suffered personal injuries as a result of the cumulative effect of the incidents. The plaintiff accepted that there was a considerable time between each particular incident, that each incident was perpetrated by a different staff member and that the employer could not have foreseen the first incident.

However, the essence of her claim centred on the contention that the first defendant had breached their duty of care to the plaintiff to provide a safe place of work as no particular action had been taken to prevent a recurrence and this inaction and the cumulative effect on her mental health forced her to leave her employment. She also alleged that as a result of the breach she suffered personal injuries, loss and damage. The trial judge had dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the basis that she had not made out her claim of negligence and that a careful employer could not have predicted that such incidents would happen. The plaintiff submitted that the trial judge had erred in characterising her claim as one of work place bullying and instead alleged that the employer was vicariously liable for their employees' tortious acts and was negligent in failing to provide a safe place of work.

The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal for vicarious liability on the basis that the incidents complained of were not behaviour committed in the course of employment as such a finding would stretch the concept of vicarious liability beyond its intended limits, particularly if employers were to be found vicariously liable for every individual aggressive verbal outburst by an employee. However, the Court agreed that all employers owe a duty of care to their employees while at work. The Court stated that given the plaintiff's role as supervisor and the potential conflict the role brings that the employer had a particular duty of care to her and ought to have procedures in place to minimise the conflict and to prevent recurrence. The Court expressed a view that the duty of care should also take account of the nature of the job and the relationship between employees but that the duty of care does not extend to ensuring that no recurrence ever takes place.

Accordingly, the Court found that the trial judge had erred by failing to deal with the alleged failure of the employer to provide a safe place of work and remitted the case to the High Court for a determination of the issues of causation and damages.
https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2018/CA287.html