Description
The Appellant had worked as a catering manager at a prison run by the Respondent. This job included supervising prisoners who worked in the prison kitchen. One prisoner had dropped a sack of food causing a spillage. The Appellant had instructed all the prisoners to stop working while the spillage was cleared, however one prisoner had continued to work and dropped a sack onto the Appellant's back while she was kneeling to clean up the spillage. At first instance the judge dismissed the claim, finding that the Respondent did not have an employment relationship with the prisoner in question and was not vicariously liable for his actions.
The Court of Appeal held that the Respondent was vicariously liable for the prisoner's actions. The Respondent compensated the prisoner for his kitchen work, the employment of the prisoner had caused the risk of injury to the Appellant, and the prisoner was under the Respondent's control. The work of kitchen workers was essential to the running of the prison and distinct from the activities of prisoners involved in education and training programmes. The employment of prisoners in the kitchen meant that the Respondent did not have to pay for external employees. The Respondent should take on the burden of the prisoner's work as well as the benefit.
