Duty of Care Legal Obligations
What the Dusek v StormHarbour Case Means for Employers
The landmark Dusek v StormHarbour Securities LLP case has fundamentally reshaped how courts assess employer responsibility during business travel. Understanding these legal precedents is now essential for any organization sending employees abroad.
The Dusek v StormHarbour Case
In this significant case, an employee was killed in a helicopter crash in Peru while on business travel. The employer had not conducted meaningful checks on the operator, pilot, or flight conditions. The court found that proper risk assessment would have identified and mitigated the danger, establishing that the harm was foreseeable and preventable.
Key Finding: The court focused on the proportionality of the risk assessment—concluding that even basic due diligence would have prevented the tragedy.
Legal Framework by Region
United Kingdom
- Health and Safety at Work Act 1974: Employers must protect employees' health and safety "so far as is reasonably practicable"
- Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007: Criminal prosecution possible for serious management failures resulting in death
United States
- OSHA General Duty Clause: Employers must provide a workplace free from recognized hazards—this extends to business travel
- Special Errand Rule: Employers can be liable even when employees are traveling home if the company controlled the travel
International
- ISO 31030:2021: International standard for travel risk management—courts increasingly use this to judge reasonableness
- While not law, adherence demonstrates good practice and can be a defense against negligence claims
The Five Elements of Effective Duty of Care
Based on ISO 31030:2021 and legal precedents
1. Leadership Commitment
Senior leadership must own and prioritize travel safety. Documented policies and board-level oversight demonstrate organizational commitment.
2. Risk Assessment
Conduct pre-trip risk assessments proportional to the danger level. Generic assessments are insufficient—each trip requires specific evaluation.
3. Pre-Trip Authorization
High-risk destinations require approval from individuals who understand the stakes. Document the decision-making process.
4. Real-Time Tracking
Employers must be able to locate their employees during travel. This enables rapid response during crises.
5. Incident Response
A functional plan for when something goes wrong. Practice and update these plans regularly.
Specific Considerations for Vulnerable Groups
Women Travelers
Women often feel less safe traveling alone in certain countries. Employers must provide tailored briefings and support.
LGBTQ+ Travelers
Many countries criminalize same-sex relationships. Fewer than 10% of companies provide LGBTQ+-specific travel information—creating significant liability gaps.
Remote Workers
When remote workers travel for work without informing their employer ("hush trips"), the employer can still be liable if an incident occurs.
Consequences of Failure
Financial Penalties
Lawsuits, regulatory fines, and criminal prosecution can be crippling
Reputational Damage
News of failing to protect employees spreads quickly, harming brand and talent acquisition
Lost Productivity
Unprotected travelers become hesitant, stalling projects; top talent leaves for safer employers
Duty of care is no longer a vague moral obligation—it's a clearly defined legal responsibility with established precedents. Organizations must document their risk management processes, conduct thorough assessments, and maintain robust response capabilities. The courts are watching, and ignorance is no longer a defense.