For a large proportion of the working population, going to work means spending a considerable amount of time in a workplace interacting with others.
In many work environments, so-called “horseplay” is common and forms part of an organisational culture which can alleviate boredom and stress or to create bonds between work colleagues.
It is a common misconception among employees that health and safety is the sole responsibility of the employer and that if an accident or incident were to occur (including one resulting from horseplay) that resulted in the injury of another person, it would be the employer that would have full responsibility.
However, pranks at work that injure or threaten to injure another person may be the subject of individual prosecution against the perpetrator.
Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 requires the employee to “take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work”.
Section 8 then requires that “no person shall intentionally interfere with or misuse anything provided in the interests of health, safety and welfare in pursuance of any of the relevant statutory provisions”.
These duties include avoiding obviously silly or reckless behaviour and employees who fail to comply with either of the duties described above make themselves liable to be prosecuted in the courts.
Therefore the prosecution of individuals can occur as a result of horseplay or practical jokes at work. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Operational Circular OC130/8 states that “some acts of horseplay and violence against people will come within the scope of s.7 if they arise out of or in connection with work and put people’s health and safety at risk”
In a case in 2006, Mr. Smith, an employee, was fined £1000 in a prosecution brought by the HSE after an accident involving a fork-lift truck at Premier Storage left two teenagers seriously injured. One suffered a broken back, the other a broken neck and back.
A fork-lift truck with a man-riding cage was parked outside a warehouse when the two brothers from a neighbouring firm climbed into the cage. The manager of the warehouse that owned the lift truck raised the cage. An employee then proceeded to climb into the lift truck, reversing it in the grounds of the warehouse with the cage still raised. He made a sharp turn, causing the lift truck to overturn, which in turn caused the injuries to the teenagers.
Following the prosecution, the HSE inspector stated that “this case is a stark reminder to all that fork-lift trucks are not toys to be played with and that if employees decide to undertake such an act of horseplay then the Health and Safety Executive will take action against them”.
Employers can be held vicariously liable for employees where it can be proven that the employer is aware of the horseplay taking place.
In a recent case, a waste management firm was fined £136,000 with £64,770 costs after an employee was crushed by a motorised shovel and subsequently died. The HSE Investigating Inspector said that there had been “extended, terrible horseplay” prior to the incident.
CCTV footage showed workers having to jump out of the way of vehicles and machinery being driven at somebody seated in a chair. The HSE’s investigation revealed a “litany” of unsafe practices in the 10 days prior to the employee’s death.
Sentencing, the judge stated that it was important to understand that the firm was not only prosecuted for the death but for “consistent disregard of worker safety on the premises over a 10 day period”.
In addition to criminal prosecutions, employers may face civil claims arising due to injuries inflicted by horseplay or pranks at work.
However, case law suggests that if an employer can show that the employees undertaking the actions were acting on a “frolic of their own”, not connected to work, the employer would not be liable for damages.
The key case on this is Smith v Crossley Brothers (1951), where a practical joke involving inserting a rubber hose into the rectum of an employee by co-workers caused injury. The court found the employer could not have prevented such an unpredictable action.
However, there are occasions when employers can be held liable. In the case of Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd (1957), an employee’s wrist was broken following a practical joke. The person responsible for the practical joke was known to be a “prankster” by his employer and as such the employer was liable as it was obvious he posed a danger but it did nothing to prevent the behaviour.
Employers cannot rule out the possibility that horseplay at work will result in harm being caused and that they can be held liable for the actions of their employees in such circumstances.
Employers should, therefore, put in place appropriate policies and procedures in relation to pranks, practical jokes and horseplay that inform employees of the consequences of inappropriate behaviour at work. It is important to strike a balance and not to discourage banter that can have a positive impact, by setting out clearly what is deemed to be acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
Here at Cambridge Safety we aim to help the business sector to keep within the bounds of current health, safety and environmental legislation and to improve the overall standards of safety.
Back to blogs