Cassidy v Ministry of Health
| Cassidy v Ministry of Health | |
|---|---|
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Citation(s) | [1951] 2 KB 343, [1951] 1 All ER 574 |
| Case opinions | |
| Denning LJ | |
| Keywords | |
| Contract of employment | |
Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 is an English tort law and UK labour law case concerning the scope of protection for people to employment rights.
Facts
Mr Cassidy went to hospital for a routine operation on his hand, but came away with stiff fingers because of the negligence of one of the doctors. [1] He attempted to sue the Ministry of Health in its capacity as employer. The Ministry argued it could not be held responsible and had no vicarious liability, relying partly on Collins v Hertfordshire[2] where it had been suggested that a surgeon was not the 'servant' of his employer.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal held that the doctor was indeed a servant of the hospital and the Ministry was vicariously liable, because the doctor was integrated into the health organisation. Denning LJ said,[3]
| “ | The reason why the employers are liable in such cases is not because they can control the way in which the work is done - they often have not sufficient knowledge to do so - but because they employ the staff and have chosen them for the task and have in their hands the ultimate sanction for good conduct, the power of dismissal. | ” |
He also noted,[4] that where a patient selects the doctor, then the doctor will not be employed by a hospital.
See also
Notes
- ↑ "Cassidy v Ministry of Health; CA 1951 - swarb.co.uk". swarb.co.uk. 2015-07-07. Retrieved 2016-12-02.
- ↑ [1947]
- ↑ [1951] 2 KB 343, 361
- ↑ [1951] 2 KB 343, 362