# Cleaner's accident



## Art (21 Dec 2010)

My father employs a cleaner who comes to his house every Tuesday and does four hours work. Last Tuesday, she broke a plate and cut her finger of which he was aware. She rang him last night and told him that she was unable to come today as her GP had instructed her to go to the local hospital, 40 miles away, to get her finger checked out. He thinks there may be glass still in the finger. Anyway I am just wondering what my father's potential liability is here in the event that there is damage to the finger?


----------



## Vanilla (21 Dec 2010)

For someone to be liable, they have to be negligent. It's hard to see how your father could have foreseen and prevented this accident taking place by any precaution, unless there's more to it than the simple story told. In any case, if your father has household insurance it may cover him in this instance, check the terms and conditions.


----------



## Complainer (21 Dec 2010)

Vanilla said:


> In any case, if your father has household insurance it may cover him in this instance, check the terms and conditions.


Would household insurance normally cover someone working in the home? Wouldn't you normally need some kind of employer's liability?

I'm guessing that this was a 'casual' employment, i.e. cash in hand and no tax or agencies involved. Could this expose the householder to further risk?


----------



## DB74 (21 Dec 2010)

But if the cleaner was self-employed then surely they should have their own insurance to cover any such accidents


----------



## PaddyBloggit (21 Dec 2010)

.... and being self-employed they would have to cover their own tax obligations etc.

If they were/are self-employed the householder should have asked to see their insurance.

Householder should check (and report to) his own insurance regardless ( ... cos Complainer's scenario seems more plausible .... especially when their hours were so few)


----------



## cairn (21 Dec 2010)

Casual employment is still employment, the distinction to be made is between an independent contractor and an employee, every case is judged on its merits but I'd be pretty confident that a dometic cleaner would be deemed to be an employee (whereas a tradesman probably would not). As Vanilla says it is hard to see how your father could be liable. 

On a positive note almost all home insurance policies would indemnify for such a loss... (usually referred to as domestic servants)


----------



## DB74 (21 Dec 2010)

cairn said:


> Casual employment is still employment, the distinction to be made is between an independent contractor and an employee, every case is judged on its merits but I'd be pretty confident that a dometic cleaner would be deemed to be an employee (whereas a tradesman probably would not).


 
What makes you think that a plumber could be classed as an external contractor while a cleaner wouldn't


----------



## fobs (22 Dec 2010)

Ouur house insurance covers this type of thing. Check out your policy.


----------



## demoivre (22 Dec 2010)

DB74 said:


> What makes you think that a plumber could be classed as an external contractor while a cleaner wouldn't



The courts might have to [broken link removed]!


----------



## cairn (22 Dec 2010)

DB74 said:


> What makes you think that a plumber could be classed as an external contractor while a cleaner wouldn't



It's a bit of a murky area the distinction being between a contract _of _service and a contract _for _service with various tests to be applied by courts. 

Factors which influence a decision would include the level of control exercised. The level of expertise is also a factor considered with the roles requiring least training being more likely to be deemed employees. 

Another factor is the entrepreneurial test, such as when a plumber quotes for a job he may theoretically make or lose money on that job, if for instance he were to employ another to assist him etc. 

There could be cases where a plumber is deemed an employee and cases where a cleaner is deemed a contractor (eg if the cleaner were an employee of a large cleaning company) but not in the majority of cases...IMHO


----------



## Art (22 Dec 2010)

Thanks folks for all of the responses. He actually rang the insurance company yesterday and it turns out that he is covered - he had said before he rang that from his reading of the policy, it wasn't clear if he was. So good news.

I doubt very much that she will take any action anyway but will let you know if there are any further developments.


----------



## Ravima (22 Dec 2010)

Cairn: Thanks for a most informative posting in simple english.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (22 Dec 2010)

Have to +1 that ... nice to see informative new members on AAM!


----------



## PaddyBloggit (23 Dec 2010)

Art said:


> MODS: I am satisfied that my question has been answered by some of the contributors. Please lock this thread.



You can lock your own thread .... look for Thread Tools at top of page.


----------

