Are Early Starts Insured?

[PhilthyPhil]

If i'm a 0500 start and i run into someone with a york who shouldn't really be there...who's to blame?
It's not just about insurance it's also about liability.....think about it.

You are. I don't see how you could argue that if someone walks into the office at 05:59 for a 06:00 start and you hit them with a york it can in any way be their fault because they shouldn't be there.

[brothermagrew]

To be quite honest i couldnt care less if someone coming in before their time has an accident or not, tough! . My biggest concern would be if one of them caused ME to have an accident ....who then would take the rap for it and pay compensation to me!

Suggest you and a few others start reading up about vicarious liability as it relates to the workplace.

[fishtank]

If i'm a 0500 start and i run into someone with a york who shouldn't really be there...who's to blame?
It's not just about insurance it's also about liability.....think about it.

You are. I don't see how you could argue that if someone walks into the office at 05:59 for a 06:00 start and you hit them with a york it can in any way be their fault because they shouldn't be there.

First of all this thread is not discussing people coming into the building at 0559 for a 0600 start.
Secondly i can assure you that my highly paid insurance lawyers will not only argue that i am not to blame but that in fact you caused the accident by being in a place you shouldn't have been at a time you shouldn't have been and are responsible at least partly for my serious whiplash injuries.
If no-one saw the accident the only provable fact was that you shouldn't have been in the building.

[andy2007]

I think you'd have a hard time proving that. Because you'd be admitting to not being as observant as normal, because you'd ASSUMED that there wasn't anyone else there. Which would of course, be used by a good Lawyer to prove you were negligent.

Of course, you'd also be proving that the other person was also partly to blame, for being somewhere that he/she shouldn't have been, at a time they shouldn't have been there. But you'd almost certainly end up being judged to be prmarily to blame.

[fishtank]

I think you'd have a hard time proving that. Because you'd be admitting to not being as observant as normal, because you'd ASSUMED that there wasn't anyone else there. Which would of course, be used by a good Lawyer to prove you were negligent.

Of course, you'd also be proving that the other person was also partly to blame, for being somewhere that he/she shouldn't have been, at a time they shouldn't have been there. But you'd almost certainly end up being judged to be prmarily to blame.

That was exactly my point Andy...of course i would be partly and probably mostly to blame but if i could shift even some of the blame onto that person just for being in the building when they shouldn't be then the whole argument about insurance is invalid because any accident you have will be at least partially blameworthy and could ultimately lead to dismissal..

[billyhayes]

This thread is quickly disappearing up it's own bottom.

I would like to know the DEFINITIVE answer. As I know of a couple of posties who I talk to in my branch about this, would love to have some clarity.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

To be quite honest i couldnt care less if someone coming in before their time has an accident or not, tough! . My biggest concern would be if one of them caused ME to have an accident ....who then would take the rap for it and pay compensation to me!

Suggest you and a few others start reading up about vicarious liability as it relates to the workplace.

Thanks for that brother you sent me off on a short yet interesting quest -

An employer is strictly liable for torts committed by those under his command, when they are found to be his employees. To this end, the courts must find a sufficient relationship to this effect, where issues of vicarious liability are raised. It has been stated judicially that no one test can adequately cover all types and instances of employment; thus, generally, the tests used and ultimate determination rest upon the individual aspects of each case, looking at all the factors as a whole.

Employer's indemnity

Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co created a controversial principle at common law, that where an employer is found vicariously liable for an employee's actions, they are entitled to recover an indemnity from them, to cover such losses. The House of Lords accepted by a narrow margin that there may be an implied term in the contracts of employees, by which they must exercise reasonable care and skill in their work. Such principles has received both criticism and support, for various reasons. Advocacy of the indemnity features on rules of principle liability; the person to commit a tort and to cause damage should pay damages arising from it. Critics state that the recovery of an indemnity is contrary to equity, due to the general lack of wealth of employees and servants. The advent of widespread insurance of employers has led to the recovery of indemnities being widely abandoned. This is illustrated by the British Insurance Association entering into a gentlemen's agreement not to utilise the rule:

"Employers' Liability Insurers agree that they will not institute a claim against the employee of an insured employer in respect of the death of or injury to a fellow-employee unless the weight of evidence clearly indicates (i) collusion or (ii) wilful misconduct on the part of the employee against whom a claim is made."[85]

As such, indemnities are not pursued from employers except in exceptional circumstances.

However, do you know what, I am still unconvinced either way as to whether early starters are covered by insurance or not. For there to be a definitive answer RM would have to state that no employees should start before their official time, as reading through the precedences I employee was considered covered by the "vicarious liability" once he had passed the firms gates and entered an area where restrictions on conduct were imposed (speed limits, no entrance etc).

Very interesting thanks.

[POSTMAN]

Email this dude mark.higson@royalmail.com his office will answer,should be interesting,i would do it but...

[joband finishlol]

In our D.O., some 10 a.m. starts are leaving the office for deliveries at the back of 9 if , God forbid,they were to have an accident i truely believe R.M. will dis-own them.Probably take them down the conduct code,now that would be ironic.

[fishtank]

In our D.O., some 10 a.m. starts are leaving the office for deliveries at the back of 9 if , God forbid,they were to have an accident i truely believe R.M. will dis-own them.Probably take them down the conduct code,now that would be ironic.

Of course they would hang them out to dry because the only other option would be to admit that they actively encourage them to come in early......and that isn't likely is it.

[brothermagrew]

An explanation of ‘vicarious liability’
If an employee, who is carrying out their job, causes injury to another person as a result of negligence then the injured party can pursue a claim not only against the individual at fault but also against their employer. This long held legal principle is known as ‘vicarious liability’. The law recognises that an employer is liable for harm caused by their employees in performing the duties of their employment. Vicarious liability is in the majority of cases, necessary to allow an injured person to recover compensation as a result of their accident. An individual employee may simply not have the money to pay compensation to an accident victim whereas their employer would be able to do so or would have insurance that would meet a claim. This means that people injured in accidents are able to successfully pursue claims for their injuries and financial losses against employers where it would not have been worth them bringing the claim if they had only been able to claim against the individual employee.

Vicarious liability can assist Claimants in relation to a variety of different accident circumstances:-
• Someone injured at work through the negligence of a colleague can sue their employer, who has a legal duty to hold employers’ liability insurance.
• A victim of a road traffic accident caused by a bus driver will be able to claim against the bus company, who will own the vehicle and hold the motor insurance.
On many occasions, the Courts have considered how far vicarious liability extends. An employer or their insurers will sometimes seek to argue that what the employee was doing was beyond the job they were employed to do and therefore the employer should not be considered liable for any injuries caused. This issue normally arises when the injury has been caused not by the negligence of an employee but by their deliberate acts, usually an assault on the injured person.

In those circumstances an employer will say that their employee was certainly not employed to assault people and therefore the employer should not be liable. In the past the Courts have taken differing views of when employers should be held liable. A ticket inspector who got into an argument with a passenger and then punched the passenger, breaking their nose, was held by the Courts to be acting outside of his employment and the train company he worked for was not considered liable for the injuries.

However, a nightclub bouncer who got into an argument with a customer and then left the nightclub and returned with a knife to stab the customer outside the premises was held by the Courts to be acting in the course of his employment. The nightclub’s insurers had to pay compensation to the stabbed victim.
The recent case of Maga –v- The Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church 2010, involved a claim made by an adult, who had been sexually abused as a child by a Catholic priest in the 1970s. The Court of Appeal held that the priest in question was an employee of the Catholic Church and that the Catholic Church was vicariously liable for the priest’s actions. The abuse was considered by the Court of Appeal to be sufficiently closely related to the priest’s employment for the Catholic Church to be vicariously liable and therefore to have to pay compensation to the victim.

The Court of Appeal’s decision was an important victory for the victim of the abuse because by the time he brought his claim as an adult, the priest in question had disappeared and may have died. Without the Court of Appeal decision the victim would not have been able to obtain any compensation.
Every case is different and thankfully the vast majority of personal injury cases against an employer involve injuries sustained in accidents, rather than as a result of assaults or abuse. However, following the decision in the Maga case, it should only be in very unusual circumstances that an employer would not be considered liable for what their employee has done.

The TORT doctrine that imposes responsibility upon one person for the failure of another, with whom the person has a special relationship (such as Parent and Child, employer and employee, or owner of vehicle and driver), to exercise such care as a reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances.
Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. It is also referred to as imputed Negligence. Legal relationships that can lead to imputed negligence include the relationship between parent and child, Husband and Wife, owner of a vehicle and driver, and employer and employee. Ordinarily the independent negligence of one person is not imputable to another person.

Other theories of liability that are premised on imputed negligence include the Respondeat Superior doctrine and the family car doctrine.
The doctrine of respondeat superior (Latin for "let the master answer") is based on the employer-employee relationship. The doctrine makes the employer responsible for a lack of care on the part of an employee in relation to those to whom the employer owes a duty of care. For respondeat superior to apply, the employee's negligence must occur within the scope of her employment.

The employer is charged with legal responsibility for the negligence of the employee because the employee is held to be an agent of the employer. If a negligent act is committed by an employee acting within the general scope of her or his employment, the employer will be held liable for damages. For example, if the driver of a gasoline delivery truck runs a red light on the way to a gas station and strikes another car, causing injury, the gasoline delivery company will be responsible for the damages if the driver is found to be negligent. Because the company will automatically be found liable if the driver is negligent, respondeat superior is a form of Strict Liability.

Another common example of imputed negligence is attributing liability to the owner of a car, where the driver of the car committed a negligent act. This type of relationship has been labeled the family car doctrine. The doctrine is based on the assumption that the head of the household provides a car for the family's use and, therefore, the operator of the car acts as an agent of the owner. When, for example, a child drives a car, registered to a parent, for a family purpose, the parent is responsible for the negligent acts of the child at the wheel.

Liability can also be imputed to an owner of a car who lends it to a friend. Again, the driver of the car is acting as the agent of the owner. If the owner is injured by the driver's negligence and sues the driver, the owner can lose the lawsuit because the negligence of the driver can be imputed to the owner, thereby rendering him contributorily negligent. This concept is known as imputed contributory negligence. At the heart of any work accident compensation claim is the issue of liability. In some accident at work compensation cases this will be clear. If an employer has directly asked an employee to do something that has a foreseeable risk of ending in a work accident and a work injury has occurred in the performance of the task, then there can be little dispute that the employer is liable to pay the resultant work accident compensation.Work accident compensation claims where this is not so clear usually involve issues of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability personal injury claims can pose potentially tricky legal problems to judges and no win, no fee solicitors.

What is vicarious liability?
Vicarious liability is a legal principle stating that an employer can be deemed liable for the actions of another. The employer may not be at fault for the work accident, but may in some way have allowed the actions of the person who has caused the work accident. In short, it is the fact of employment rather than the actions of the employer that establishes vicarious liability. In effect, this makes the employer liable for any future work accident compensation claim.
The three most common situations where an employer might be held liable for the actions of an employee, or third party, and any subsequent accident at work compensation claim are:
Where there is a master-servant relationship an employer (the master) is considered liable for the actions of an employee (the servant) when the employee has behaved negligently or damagingly while performing tasks on the employer's behalf.
The employer and the negligent party are business partners and, in most instances, business partners are considered liable for the actions of the other in work accident compensation claims.
Where the negligent person is an agent of the employer, the employer will generally be held liable of any work injury compensation claim.
Difficulties in establishing when a person is a servant
Where the negligent party is an employee in a simple employer-employee relationship there should be no difficulty in establishing that they were a servant at the time of the work accident.
Difficulties arise in determining liability for work accident compensation in situations where the negligent party is a self-employed person who is contracted by the employer to carry out a job. In such situations the boundaries of the master-servant relationship are blurred. In these instances there are tests to determine the existence of a master-servant relationship:
The 'control test' - in cases where an employer decides how the work should be carried out rather than just what is to be done, a master-servant relationship has been established, making the employer liable for any work accident compensation claim.
The 'integral to business' test - if the employee's or contractor's work is integral to the business rather than extraneous, the employer is considered liable for any accident at work personal injury compensation claim.
The 'economic reality' test - if the employee or contractor does not assume any economic incentive or economic risk in performance of the action then the employer would normally be considered liable for any work accident compensation claim.

Carrying out an employer's business'
In order for an employer to be considered vicariously liable for a work accident compensation claim, the negligent employee must been have carrying out employer's business at the time the work injury was sustained.Taking precedents set in vicarious liability work accident compensation cases that have gone to the UK's higher courts, it would seem that vicarious liability is established in cases where a negligent employee is at work'. This rule generally applies to all work accident compensation claims, even if the negligent employee is carrying out work in a manner which has been expressly forbidden by the employer.
Advantage of a vicarious liability work accident compensation claim
Making a work accident compensation claim for personal injury against an employer as opposed to a negligent colleague has obvious advantages to the claimant. The major advantage is that it is compulsory for all employers to be insured for work accident compensation claims. This means that any injury compensation claim against an employer is likely to be of greater benefit to a claimant than a work accident claim made against a colleague.

If you've been injured in an accident at work your employer may be liable to pay you work accident compensation. It is your right and this is why employer's pay insurance.