Employers liability

Anotações:

• -Common law duty laid out in Wilsons & Clyde Coal Ltd v English.  - Common law duty does not extend to independent contractors.

1. Safe Premises
   1. concerned with the place of work itself Latimer v AEC, General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas
   2. 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
      1. - 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
2. Safe equipment

   Anotações:

   • Knowles v Liverpool CC 
   1. 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

      Anotações:

      • Definition of equipment as any pland and machinery, vehicle aircraft and clothing
3. Safe System of work
   1. Key elements decided in Speed v Thomas swift

      Anotações:

      • 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
   2. Failure to warn employees of dangers of work

      Anotações:

      • Pape v cumbria county council  -  Employer did not tell cleaners that failing to use gloves when handling chemicals could lead to dermatitis. 
   3. Failure to ensure that safety measures provided were used

      Anotações:

      • 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. 
   4. Failure to take action to guard against known risks

      Anotações:

      • 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
   5. Failure to protect against psychiatric injury

      Anotações:

      •  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
4. Competent staff- employer must make sure he employs competent staff if not could wind up being liable in vicarious liability and employers liability.

Anotações:

• Most commonly arises from the Health and safety at work Act 1974 although there are others. 

1. Actionable breach?

   Anotações:

   • Not all statutes give rise to civil action if breached although these are common: - Consumer Protection Act 
   1. Express statement in statute
   2. Statute was silent

      Anotações:

      • 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 .  
2. Elements of the tort
   1. statutory duty owed to claimant
      1. Breach of duty by defendant
   2. Damage
   3. causation
3. Defences
   1. volenti
   2. Contributory negligence