Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Employers liability
- Common law duty
Anmerkungen:
- -Common law duty laid out in Wilsons & Clyde Coal Ltd v English.
- Common law duty does not extend to independent contractors.
- Safe Premises
- concerned with the place
of work itself Latimer v
AEC, General Cleaning
Contractors v Christmas
- If employees work takes him onto another's
premises, employer must take reasonable steps to
ensure that these are safe and not inure his
employee. Factors for employers to consider,
outlined in Cook v Square D
- - Location where
work required to be
done - nature of the
building - nature of
the work required
from the employee -
employee's
expertise and
experience - degree
of control that is
reasonable to
expect the employee
to exercise - whether
the employer is
aware that the
premises are
dangerous
- Safe equipment
Anmerkungen:
- Common law duty supplemented by Employer's
Liability Act 1969 . Expands duty upon employer to
include liability that is defective due to the negligence
of third parties ie manufacturers
Anmerkungen:
- Definition of equipment as any pland and machinery, vehicle aircraft and clothing
- Safe System of work
- Key elements decided in Speed v Thomas swift
Anmerkungen:
- Court decided that the duty to provide a safe system of work included four features:
1) Physical layout of the job
2) The sequence by which work is carried out
3) the provision of warnings and notices and the issue of special instructions where necessary
4) The need to modify or improve the system to respond to particular circumstances
- Failure to warn employees
of dangers of work
Anmerkungen:
- Pape v cumbria county council - Employer did not tell cleaners that failing to use gloves when handling chemicals could lead to dermatitis.
- Failure to
ensure that
safety measures
provided were
used
Anmerkungen:
- Bux v Slough Metals - employer knew that employee refused to wear safety goggles proovided, did nothing and thus was liable when eyes injured by molten metals.
- Failure to take action to guard against known risks
Anmerkungen:
- Rahman v arearose : the employer was liable when his employee was attacked by a customer as he had taken no action to introduce a systme to prevent this despite attacks against other members of staff in the past
- Failure to protect against psychiatric injury
Anmerkungen:
- Walker v Northumberland County Council
employer did nothing to alter an employee's workload after he returned to work following a nervous breakdown, thus was liable when he suffered a second breakdown as they were aware he was susceptible to stress
- Competent staff- employer must make
sure he employs competent staff if not
could wind up being liable in vicarious
liability and employers liability.
- Statutory duty
Anmerkungen:
- Most commonly arises from the Health and safety at work Act 1974 although there are others.
- Actionable breach?
Anmerkungen:
- Not all statutes give rise to civil action if breached although these are common:
- Consumer Protection Act
- Express
statement in
statute
- Statute was silent
Anmerkungen:
- Most statutes are silent as to whether an action in tort arises. cOURTS WILL LOOK TO RPECEDENT AND THEN the parliaments intention Lonrho v Shell .
- Elements of the tort
- statutory duty owed to claimant
- Breach of duty by defendant
- Damage
- causation
- Defences
- volenti
- Contributory negligence