The case provides a clear illustration of the heightened obligations placed on employers in residential care environments where service users present known risks of violence. It also demonstrates how shortcomings in behaviour-specific risk assessments, staff training, communication of escalating risks, and staffing arrangements can combine to create systemic failings. For practitioners advising care providers, the judgment offers valuable guidance on what “reasonable care” requires in practice when managing service users with challenging behaviour.
Background
The claimant, a support worker in a residential care setting, was injured during her night-time duties. After settling one tenant to bed, she entered the communal area where another tenant – who required two-to-one support – approached her while seated on a gym ball. This tenant frequently sought hand-holding, and the claimant initially engaged in this familiar interaction. The tenant then pulled her towards him with unexpected force, continued bouncing, extended his arms as if seeking a conciliatory hug, placed his hands behind her head and bit her cheek.
Colleagues were initially unaware of the incident. One of the tenant’s designated support workers attempted release techniques but was unable to assist. The claimant ultimately relied on her aggression-management training to free herself.
The Claim and Defence
The claimant alleged that the employer failed to carry out an adequate behaviour-specific risk assessment addressing the tenant’s biting behaviour, and did not provide clear, specific training on how to avoid or manage bites. She also argued that the employer failed to warn her that the tenant was “cycling” – a recognised escalation pattern – and that staff did not intervene appropriately when she entered the communal area despite the tenant’s requirement for two-to-one support.
The defendant denied liability and alleged contributory negligence, asserting that the claimant was aware of the tenant’s cycling behaviour and relying on a message-book entry recording a biting incident the previous day.
Relevant Authorities
Two authorities were identified as most relevant to incidents involving service-user violence: Wisniewski (a minor) v Central Manchester Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 596 and City of Wakefield MDC v Slater [2005] EWHC 3528 (QB). Both emphasise foreseeability of harm and the heightened duty of care required where an employer knows of a specific behavioural risk.
Legal Framework
Employers owe a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. In settings involving individuals with challenging or violent behaviour, this duty requires a suitable and sufficient risk assessment addressing the specific behaviours known to pose a risk.
Where a particular risk – such as biting – is foreseeable, the employer must adopt a higher degree of care and ensure that training, guidance and staffing arrangements reflect the seriousness of that risk. The obligation extends to communicating developing risks promptly and ensuring that staff understand the behaviours that may indicate an escalating risk of harm.
On causation, the claimant must show that, had the employer properly assessed the risk, trained staff, or acted differently, a precaution would probably have been taken that would probably have avoided the injury.
Behaviour-Specific Risk Assessments
A central failing in this case was the employer’s reliance on generalised assessments that did not meaningfully address the tenant’s known biting behaviour. In practice, behaviour-specific assessments must be detailed, precise and tailored to the individual service user.
Practitioners advising care providers should ensure that assessments identify the specific behaviours of concern, the triggers that may escalate those behaviours and the environmental contexts in which staff may be exposed to heightened risk.
For example, where a tenant is known to bite, the assessment should clearly state that close face-to-face contact is unsafe, that hand-holding may escalate into grabbing, and that staff must maintain a safe distance unless supported by another worker. It should also specify the steps staff must take if the required staffing ratio cannot be maintained, and how colleagues should intervene when a worker inadvertently enters a high-risk situation.
Risk assessments must be treated as live documents. They should be updated promptly following incidents, and employers must ensure that all staff – particularly those working night shifts or rotating between tenants – are aware of any changes.
Adequate Training
Training must be practical, behaviour-focused and reinforced through regular refreshers. In cases involving biting risks, theoretical instruction is insufficient. Staff should be taught how to maintain safe positioning, how to disengage safely if grabbed, and how to recognise early signs of escalation such as cycling. Scenario-based training is particularly valuable, allowing staff to rehearse responses to realistic situations and understand the limits of familiar interactions such as hand-holding.
Training should also address the tension between providing compassionate care and maintaining personal safety. Where a tenant seeks close contact but has a history of biting, staff must be given clear, unambiguous guidance on how to manage that conflict.
Communication of Escalating Risks
The judgment underscores the importance of effective communication systems. Employers must ensure that recent incidents, behavioural changes and escalation patterns are communicated promptly and consistently.
Message-book entries, handover notes and care-plan updates must be accessible and must be read by staff before commencing their shift. Real-time communication is essential where staffing ratios are critical; colleagues must be aware of each other’s movements and must intervene immediately when a worker enters a high-risk area alone.
Staffing Requirements and Two-to-One Support
The tenant’s two-to-one support requirement was a significant factor. Such requirements are not merely administrative; they are protective mechanisms designed to prevent precisely the type of incident that occurred. In practice, two-to-one support means that staff must not enter the tenant’s vicinity alone, and colleagues must maintain constant awareness of each other’s location.
Supervisors must ensure rota compliance and adequate cover, and any deviation from the ratio must trigger immediate risk-mitigation steps.
Courts often treat failures to maintain staffing ratios as systemic rather than isolated. Where a ratio is imposed because of known violent behaviour, any breach is likely to be viewed as a serious lapse.
Contributory Negligence
The defendant argued that the claimant, as an experienced support worker, should have been more cautious. The court rejected this, but the issue is significant for practitioners. Contributory negligence may arise where a worker knowingly disregards clear instructions or engages in prohibited interactions. However, courts are slow to find contributory negligence where employer systems are deficient, training is unclear or staff are placed in situations where compliance is difficult.
Experience does not absolve employers of their duty to provide clear, consistent guidance. Nor does it justify shifting responsibility onto staff where risk assessments and communication systems have failed.
Outcome
The judge found in favour of the claimant. The risk assessments, care plans and logbook entries did not adequately address the risks posed to staff, and the employer had failed to implement the heightened precautions required in light of the tenant’s known behaviour.
Practical Lessons for Care Providers and Advisers
The case reinforces several key lessons. Behaviour-specific risk assessments must be detailed, regularly updated and shared with all staff. Training must be practical, scenario-based and focused on the specific behaviours of concern. Communication systems must ensure that staff are aware of recent incidents and escalating risks, and staffing ratios must be adhered to rigorously.
Documentation must be consistent and unambiguous, and contributory negligence arguments will rarely succeed where employer systems are flawed.
Ultimately, employers must adopt a proactive, behaviour-focused approach to managing known risks. Where violent behaviour is foreseeable, courts expect a higher standard of care and will scrutinise whether employers have genuinely implemented the precautions their own documentation describes.
.jpg&w=3840&q=75)
Copyright & permissions
