What question did this study set out to answer?

This article explores the scope of employer liability concerning infectious diseases and challenges current interpretations of duty of care.

May 6, 2026The Cambridge Law Journal0 citationsOpen Access

Infectious Disease and the Scope of the Employer’s Duty of Care

JFJohn Bridge Fanning

Key Points

This article explores the scope of employer liability concerning infectious diseases and challenges current interpretations of duty of care.
Analyzed government guidance from COVID-19 pandemic regarding employer responsibilities.
Reviewed existing legal frameworks on occupational and infectious diseases.
Critiqued the implications of employer liability concerning community-transmitted infections.
Establishes that employers’ duty of care does not extend to diseases in general circulation.
Clarifies the distinction between occupational and community infectious diseases in English law.

Abstract

Abstract Government guidance published during the COVID-19 pandemic implied that employers owe a duty to protect their employees from the risk of infectious disease in the workplace. That employers owe a duty in respect of occupational disease – including occupational infectious disease – is well established. However, there is no authority to support the proposition that the employer’s duty extends to include infectious diseases in general circulation in the community (e.g. COVID-19, flu, measles). The Government’s guidance was therefore based on a misunderstanding of employers’ liability. This article argues that infectious diseases in general circulation are, and should remain, beyond the scope of the employer’s duty in English law.

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper