英语论文网

美国留学生 law essay

工作压力产生的法律责任主要“容易被忽视，并且取决于3个相关要求:注意到义务的存在,在某种情况下，合理地预料到忽视了义务的存在,以及这种失误带来的损害”。[1]根据耶和华赖特在威尔逊克莱德有限公司的英语诉讼[2]“雇主有义务采取合理的方式照顾他的工人的安全”。[3]责任是“选择适当的和有能力的人员,为其工作提供足够的材料和资源，并提供一个适当的工作系统”。[4]尽管最初“雇主对其雇员的不法行为的责任仅限于人身伤害的责任，以及神经冲击的形式所造成的精神损伤”。[5]然而由于最近的判例法，“雇主隐含的义务不再仅仅是合理照顾员工的人身安全”。[6]这意味着职业压力也在雇主应该照顾的义务范围内，它 “隐含在每一个雇佣合同中”。[7]对1997年骚扰保护法案最近的解释 [8]majrowski 对他人的诉讼 [9]意味着也可以根据该法案追究工作压力下的责任。

Stress As Developed In A Satisfactory Manner Law Essay

Liability for stress at work primarily arises “ in negligence and depends on 3 interrelated requirements: the existence of a duty of care; a failure to take the care which can be reasonably expected In the circumstances; and damage suffered as a result of that failure ”. [1] According to Lord Wright in Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd v English [2] “ employer has a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of his workmen ”. [3] The duty is to “ select proper and competent persons, provide adequate materials and resources for the work and to provide a proper system of working ”. [4] Although originally the “ employer's delictual duty of care towards its employees was limited to liability for physical injury or to psychiatric injury in the form of nervous shock ”. [5] However as a result of ‘recent case law’ “ the employer's implied duty of reasonable care extended beyond care for the physical safety of the employee ”. [6] This meant that occupational stress came within the scope of employer’s duty of care as it is “implied into every contract of employment ”. [7] The recent interpretation of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 [8] in majrowski v guy’s [9] has meant that liability for stress at work can also arise under the act.

In this essay I will firstly be providing an account of the ‘law on the liability for stress at work’ and whether the ‘law has developed in a satisfactory manner’. In doing so particular emphasis will placed on the 16 practical propositions from the case of Sutherland v Hatton [10] and subsequent developments which provide useful practical guidance in cases of ‘stress at work’. I will then argue that the decision of majrowski is an unsatisfactory development in relation to ‘law of stress at work’. I will then put forward the argument that the limitation imposed by johnson in relation to liability for stress arising in contract via the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence is a satisfactory development.

Law on the liability for stress at work

The liability for at stress at work first arose in the case of Walker v Northumberland County Council. [11] In the deciding case it was held that “ An employer owes a duty to his employees not to cause them psychiatric damage by the volume or character of the work which they are required to perform ”. [12] Therefore “the defendant county council was in breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff as his employer in respect of a second mental breakdown which he suffered as a result of stress and anxiety caused by his job which consisted of a very heavy workload”. [13] Thus “it was reasonably foreseeable that the employee will suffer from the repetition of his illness”. [14] The decision “ in walker had, in the context of employers' liability , opened the floodgates to compensation for psychiatric injury without proof of shock”. [15] For example “In 1998 a survey establi本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。