EMPLOYERS BEWARE

British Steel plc –v- Simmons [2004] UKHL 20
29 April 2004
Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Baroness Hale of Richmond

Mr Simmons worked as a burner for British Steel plc. On 13 May 1996 he tripped at work striking his head against a metal stanchion. As a result of this accident Mr Simmons suffered from blurred vision, headaches and suppuration from his ear. He also became angry towards British Steel plc to whom he had made previous requests to install a safer system of work, British Steel plc however failed to take any action in this respect. Following the accident Mr Simmons experienced an exacerbation of a pre-existing skin condition and a personality change, these together with his inability to return to work led to a depressive illness and a deterioration in Mr Simmons’ general mental health.

In his decision at first instance the Lord Ordinary found British Steel plc to be liable for the immediate physical injuries. However he did not allow Mr Simmons to recover damages for his psychiatric or skin conditions as he had developed these as a result of his anger which he experienced after the accident had occurred.

The Inner House reversed the decision of the Lord Ordinary on the basis that Mr Simmons’ skin had deteriorated within a few days of the accident.

The decision of the Inner House was upheld by the House of Lords. Provided there was a causal link between his psychiatric conditions and the accident, British Steel plc’s duty of care extended to the psychiatric symptoms as well as to the physical consequences. Indeed Lord Hope of Craighead commented that “..they must take their victim as they find him, so the aggravation of his psoriasis and the anger which led to his depressive mental illness can both be assumed to fall within the scope of their liability”. He identified the real question in the case to be whether the negligence of British Steel materially contributed to the disease. Lord Hope found that although there were several causes of Mr Simmons’s anger, it was enough to establish that one of these arose due to the defendants negligence.

Such a decision is likely to have a significant impact on claims involving psychiatric injury which has arisen indirectly from an accident. It may lead the courts to extend the rules of remoteness to encompass both psychiatric ad physical injuries that stem from an emotional reaction which in turn leads to a recognised mental illness.

For advice on all aspects of litigation contact Campbell Fitzpatrick Solicitors.