Cox v Ministry of Justice (Rev 2)
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE
- LADY JUSTICE SHARP
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case concerns an appeal from the Swansea County Court where the claim for damages by a catering manager at HM Prison Swansea was dismissed. The manager was injured due to a prisoner's negligence. The claims included vicarious liability and breach of duty by the employer. The appeal court held the Defendant vicariously liable but not liable for breach of duty in providing a safe working environment.
Judgment
Lord Justice McCombe:
Introduction
This is an appeal from the judgment and order of 3 May 2013 of His Honour Judge Keyser QC, sitting in the Swansea County Court, dismissing the Appellant’s claim against the Defendant for damages for personal injury.
The facts of the case are fully set out in the careful judgment of the learned judge and are not in dispute. A short summary of those facts is all that is necessary for the purposes of the appeal.
On 10 September 2007, while working as the catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, the Claimant was injured in an accident caused by the negligence of a prisoner carrying out paid work under her supervision. She was 40 years old at the time. She was in the service of the Crown in her post, but was not strictly speaking an employee. She had day to day charge of catering in the prison, in all its aspects, including supervision of the operation of the kitchen, ordering supplies, dealing with deliveries and matters relating to budget, staffing and training. Her immediate superior was the Head of Custodial Care, who in turn was responsible to the Deputy Governor.
The claimant had four members of staff under her in the staff hierarchy, three civilians and one prison officer. Two of these subordinates would be on duty at any one time. Approximately, twenty prisoners would be assigned each day to kitchen work. Such prisoners would sometimes be regularly engaged in this work. Others would assist over short periods.
Food produced in the kitchen, for which the Claimant had responsibility, was for prisoners only. They numbered some 400 at the time. The kitchen did not cater for staff members.
On the day in question, at about 9.15 a.m., a delivery of supplies for the kitchen arrived on the ground floor. The Claimant went to attend to the delivery, taking with her six prisoners who were to bring the delivered food supplies from the ground floor to the first floor.
It seems that the customary manner of carrying out this task was for the goods to be loaded onto trolleys and taken to the first floor by lift. However, prisoners were not permitted to travel in the lifts for security reasons. A prisoner tasked with the operation would nonetheless have to enter the lift for the purpose of loading the goods. On this morning a number of lift journeys were successfully accomplished. However, with one trolley still waiting to be moved, the lift door suddenly slammed closed trapping one of the working prisoners. It appears th