Mattis v Pollock is a landmark English tort law case that significantly developed the doctrine of vicarious liability, particularly in situations involving intentional torts such as assault. The case clarified that an employer may be held vicariously liable for acts of violence committed by an employee where those acts are closely connected to the employee’s duties, even if the acts are deliberate, premeditated, or motivated by revenge.
This case arose from a violent incident outside a nightclub, where the club owner was held liable for injuries inflicted by a doorman. The decision reinforced and applied the “close connection” test, building upon the precedent set in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd.
Facts of Mattis v Pollock
In Mattis v Pollock, the claimant Mr Mattis suffered severe injuries when he was stabbed outside the Flamingos nightclub in London. The nightclub was owned by Mr Pollock, who employed Mr Cranston as a doorman and bouncer. Notably, Mr Cranston was unlicensed and was known for his aggressive and intimidating approach towards customers. Mr Pollock encouraged this behaviour and expected Mr Cranston to act firmly to maintain order in the club, including the use of physical force if necessary.
The background to the incident involves several altercations. On 18 July 1998, there was a physical confrontation involving Mr Cranston and a customer named Mr Fitzgerald. Mr Cranston threw one of Mr Fitzgerald’s friends across a room inside the club. Mr Pollock had given Mr Cranston instructions to “impress upon Mr Fitzgerald” that he was prepared to use force to ensure compliance with his instructions. This set the tone for Mr Cranston’s aggressive role in the nightclub.
On 24 July 1998, Mr Mattis attended the club with his friend, Mr Cook. Following instructions from Mr Pollock, Mr Cranston barred Mr Cook from the club and ejected him. About a week later, Mr Mattis returned with friends. Later that night, Mr Cook and Mr Fitzgerald arrived. Upon seeing them, Mr Cranston violently assaulted Mr Cook and one of his friends inside the club.
When Mr Mattis intervened to protect his friends, Mr Cranston fled the premises temporarily. However, he returned shortly afterwards and stabbed Mr Mattis in the back, causing a severed spinal cord and rendering him paraplegic. Mr Cranston was convicted of grievous bodily harm with intent and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.
Legal Issues
The key legal issue in Mattis v Pollock was whether Mr Pollock, the nightclub owner, could be held vicariously liable for the stabbing committed by his employee, Mr Cranston. The case raised important questions about the scope of vicarious liability, especially concerning intentional torts like assault. Specifically, the court had to decide:
- Whether the stabbing was committed “in the course of employment” or closely connected to the employee’s duties.
- Whether it was fair and just to impose vicarious liability on the employer given the violent nature of the act.
- The relevance of the employer’s instructions and knowledge of the employee’s aggressive tendencies in establishing liability.
Trial Court Decision in Mattis v Pollock
At first instance, the High Court ruled against Mr Mattis. The trial judge found that the stabbing took place outside the course of Mr Cranston’s employment. The judge emphasised the lapse of time and intervening events between the initial incidents inside the club and the stabbing outside. This temporal gap and the fact that Mr Cranston had left the club’s premises led the judge to conclude that the stabbing could not be regarded as part of a single continuous incident originating at the club.
The judge also noted that even if Mr Pollock owed a duty of care in selecting and supervising his employees, that duty did not extend to acts committed beyond the scope of employment, such as the stabbing with a knife outside the club. Therefore, the employer was not vicariously liable for the grievous bodily harm inflicted on Mr Mattis.
Court of Appeal Judgement in Mattis v Pollock
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s decision and allowed Mr Mattis’s appeal. The Court undertook a thorough analysis of the principles of vicarious liability, relying heavily on the “close connection” test established in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd and reinforced in Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam.
The court emphasised that the question was not whether the stabbing occurred strictly “in the course of employment” in the traditional sense but whether the stabbing was so closely connected with what the employer authorised or expected of the employee that it would be fair and just to hold the employer liable.
The Court of Appeal found that:
- Mr Cranston was employed and encouraged to perform his duties in an aggressive and intimidating manner.
- The stabbing was the unfortunate culmination of a series of incidents that began inside the nightclub.
- The stabbing could not be treated in isolation from the prior altercations inside the club.
- The words spoken by Mr Cranston at the time of the stabbing (“I’ll teach you to **** with me”) demonstrated a direct link between the stabbing and the previous confrontation inside the club.
Lord Justice Judge, delivering the judgement, held that vicarious liability was established because the employer’s responsibility for the employee’s violent actions was not extinguished at the time of the stabbing. The Court also noted the importance of Mr Pollock’s knowledge of and tacit approval for Mr Cranston’s aggressive conduct, which the employer had encouraged rather than curbed.
Legal Principles Established
Mattis v Pollock is important for several reasons in English tort law:
- Extension of Vicarious Liability to Intentional Torts: The case confirmed that vicarious liability may apply to intentional torts, including assault, where there is a close connection between the wrongful act and the employee’s duties.
- Close Connection Test: The case reinforced the use of the close connection test, which focuses on the relationship between the employee’s wrongful act and the authorised scope of employment, rather than rigidly requiring the act to be carried out “in the course of employment” in a narrow sense.
- Employer’s Knowledge and Encouragement: The employer’s knowledge of the employee’s violent tendencies and encouragement of aggressive conduct are critical factors when considering vicarious liability.
- Cumulative Incidents Considered: Courts will consider a series of incidents as a continuum rather than isolated events when determining liability.
Application and Impact
The decision in Mattis v Pollock significantly impacted how courts view employer liability for violent acts committed by employees. It placed a greater responsibility on employers, particularly those in industries where violence may be foreseeable, to monitor and control employee conduct. The ruling also clarified that liability can arise even when an assault occurs outside the physical workplace or outside standard working hours if it is closely linked to employment duties.
This case is frequently cited in subsequent cases dealing with vicarious liability and intentional torts. It illustrates that employers cannot simply evade liability by pointing to the employee’s personal motives or the location and timing of the wrongful act.
Conclusion
Mattis v Pollock remains a pivotal case in the development of vicarious liability under English law. It highlights that employers may be held liable for deliberate and violent acts by employees where those acts are closely connected to the employee’s duties and the employer’s expectations.
By confirming the application of the close connection test and emphasising the employer’s role in encouraging aggressive conduct, Mattis v Pollock ensures that victims of employee violence may seek redress from employers who have fostered or tolerated such behaviour.
Summary
To summarise, Mattis v Pollock demonstrates the following key points:
- The employer can be vicariously liable for assaults committed by employees if the acts are closely connected to the employee’s job.
- The traditional “course of employment” test has evolved into a more flexible “close connection” test.
- Employers who encourage or tolerate aggressive and violent employee conduct risk being held liable.
- Liability may extend beyond the workplace and standard working hours if the wrongful act is linked to employment.
This case remains a cornerstone authority for vicarious liability in tort law and continues to influence how courts assess employer responsibility for employee misconduct.