## Facts

- The claimant, Gravil, played for Henley Hawks rugby club while the defendant, Carroll, played for Redruth Rugby Club.
- During a match between the two clubs, Carroll punched Gravil, resulting in significant facial injuries.
- Gravil brought a claim against both Carroll and Redruth Rugby Club, alleging the club was vicariously liable for Carroll's actions.
- The trial court initially held that Carroll’s punch was an intentional act of violence and not within the course of his employment.
- The Court of Appeal overturned the trial court’s finding, holding the punch was sufficiently connected to Carroll’s role as a rugby player.

## Issues

1. Whether an act of violence, specifically a punch thrown during a rugby match, can be considered as occurring within the course of employment for the purposes of vicarious liability.
2. Whether the employer rugby club could be held liable for injuries caused by a player’s on-field misconduct, prohibited by the rules of the game.
3. Whether a sufficiently close connection existed between the wrongful act and the player’s employment duties.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that Carroll’s punch was sufficiently connected to his employment as a rugby player and therefore occurred within the course of employment.
- The employer, Redruth Rugby Club, was found vicariously liable for the injuries caused by Carroll’s on-field conduct.
- The court considered the policy rationale of ensuring compensation for victims when the employee may lack the means to pay damages.
- It was recognized that, in the context of rugby as a contact sport, even wrongful acts occurring during the performance of assigned duties may fall within the scope of employment.

## Legal Principles

- Vicarious liability holds employers responsible for wrongs committed by employees acting within the course of their employment.
- The “close connection” test determines if the wrongful act is sufficiently linked to the employee’s duties, making employer liability appropriate.
- Acts occurring during the performance of employment duties, even if prohibited by the rules (such as a punch in rugby), may still be within the course of employment if closely connected to those duties.
- The doctrine is rooted in public policy considerations, particularly to ensure access to compensation for victims of wrongful acts.
- Courts must analyze the facts carefully to assess whether the required close connection exists.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that employers in high-contact sports may be vicariously liable for intentional acts of violence by employees if those acts are closely connected to their employment, emphasizing the application of the “close connection” test to sports-related misconduct.


Gravil v Carroll [2008] EWCA Civ 689