The risk of sexual assault on an employee in a low-risk retail environment such as an optometry practice, while foreseeable, may be of such slight magnitude and probability that an employer is not in breach of duty for failing to install security mechanisms such as lockable doors, infra-red beams, or CCTV. Where an employer's alleged negligence consists of an omission to provide safety measures, the employee must prove both that the measures would have been effective and that the employee would have used them. A trial judge who focuses on the circumstances of the particular incident rather than the prospective response of a reasonable person in the employer's position may err in applying the Shirt calculus.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.