Gravil v Carroll [2008] EWCA Civ 689

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal