Gravil v Redruth Rugby Football Club Ltd and anor
To succeed in a claim of vicarious liability for personal injury, claimants have to show that the injury occurred in the “ordinary course” of the perpetrator’s employment. In Gravil v Redruth Rugby Football Club Ltd and anor (IRLR 2008, 829; IDS 861), the Court of Appeal said that the rugby club was liable for injuries caused by one of its employed players during the course of a match because of the close connection between the assault and his employment.
Basic facts
Richard Carroll (who played in the second row for Redruth) and Andrew Gravil (who played as a prop forward for Halifax) were semi-professional rugby players who were employed part time by their clubs, but who had other full time jobs.
Mr Carroll’s contract stated that he must not physically assault opponents (among others), nor bring the club into disrepute; and that the club may be “vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the player during the employment”.
During a National League Division 2 match on 29 October 2005, an incident occurred following a scrum in which Mr Carroll punched Mr Gravil. As a result of the attack, he suffered a blow-out fracture of the right orbit, which required reconstructive orbital surgery.
On 9 October 2006 at a Rugby Football Union disciplinary hearing Mr Carroll admitted the assault. Mr Gravil brought a claim for damages for personal injury against both Mr Carroll and Redruth Rugby Football Club.
County and High Court decisions
The county court held that Mr Gravil was entitled to damages of £8,500 and that Mr Carroll was personally liable as he had thrown the punch. The judge dismissed Mr Gravil’s claim that the club was vicariously liable for his actions.
He appealed against that decision but his appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Mr Gravil appealed again to the Court of Appeal.
Decision of Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal, by contrast, decided that Redruth was vicariously liable for Mr Carroll’s assault. It said that courts have to ask “whether the tort was so closely connected with the employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employers vicariously liable”.
In order to answer that question courts can take account of all the circumstances of the case” but they must also consider whether “the wrongful conduct may fairly and properly be regarded as done while acting in the ordinary course of the employee's employment.”
It was not appropriate to ask the broader question, “namely whether in all the circumstances of the case it would be fair and just to hold the club liable. The critical factor is the nature of the employment and the closeness (or otherwise) of the connection between the employment and the tort”.
In this case, the Court decided there was a very close connection between the punch and Mr Carroll’s “employment” as a rugby player for the club. It said that the incident “was just the kind of thing that both clubs would have expected to occur. Regrettably the throwing of punches is not uncommon in situations like this, when the scrum is breaking up after the whistle has gone. Indeed, they can fairly be regarded as an ordinary (though undesirable) incident of a rugby match.
In these circumstances there was in our opinion a close, indeed a very close, connection between the first defendant's employment as a second row forward and his punching and injuring the claimant as a prop on the other side”.
The Court said that “closeness” could also be ascertained from the terms of Mr Carroll’s contract which expressly stated that the club could be vicariously liable for what he did during his employment. The fact that he was employed part time was irrelevant.
But would it be fair and just to hold the club liable? Yes, said the Court, partly because it would bring home to the club the importance of taking proactive steps to eradicate (or at least minimize) the risk of foul play that might cause injury; and partly because Mr Gravil deserved “an adequate and just remedy.”