Term
| Is the doC owed by employers to employees delegable? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English [1938] (on the duty) |
|
Definition
1) The duty to provide a safe workplace, including materials and plant
2) The duty to operate a safe system of work, including supervision and instruction
3) The duty to provide an employee with competent fellow employees |
|
|
Term
| If an employer complies with the relevant statutory duties, will their common law duties be met? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Wilson v Tyneside cleaning Co [1958] |
|
Definition
EMPLOYER OWES DUTY TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR EMPLOYEES TO WORK. THIS APPLIES TO BOTH THE EMPLOYER'S OWN PREMISES AND ANY THIRD PARTY PREMISES.
HOWEVER, THE STANDARD IS LOWER FOR 3RD PARTY PREMISES, REFLECTING THE ABILITY OF AN EMPLOYER TO CHECK 3RD PARTY PREMISES |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
IN PROVIDING A SAFE PLACE FOR EMPLOYEES TO WORK, THE EMPLOYER MUST PROVIDE THE NECESSARY SAFETY EQUIPMENT. HOWEVER, TEMPORARY OR EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS MAY NOT COME UNDER THIS REQUIREMENT
this case = going to war |
|
|
Term
| Bux v Slough Metals [1973] |
|
Definition
| AN EMPLOYER MUST PROVIDE SAFETY EQUIPMENT FOR THE EMPLOYEES. THE EMPLOYER MUST ALSO ENCOURAGE/INSIST THAT THE EMPLOYEES USE THE SAFETY EQUIPMENT. |
|
|
Term
| Yorkshire Traction Co Ltd v Walter Searby [2003] |
|
Definition
WHERE AN EMPLOYER INTRODUCES SAFETY EQUIPMENT, BUT EMPLOYEES REFUSE TO USE IT, THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT BE NEGLIGENT FOR FAILING TO ENFORCE THE USE OF THAT SAFETY EQUIPMENT (balance all the factors together)
V = bus driver who was stabbed by a passenger
V claimed the bus company had been negligent in failing to use protective screens between the drivers and passengers
HOWEVER, bus company argued that they had introduced the screens on some buses, but that drivers had objected to them, and in some cases removed them, because the screens reflected light at night and were therefore dangerous.
also, the risk from passengers in the relevant area = low
HELD - balancing the factors against each other, the bus company was not negligent in failing to put up the screens in all buses |
|
|
Term
| EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT) ACT 1969 |
|
Definition
| made employers liable for injuries sustained by employees by reason of defective equipment provided by the employer for the purposes of their business... even where the defect arose from the negligence of 3rd parties |
|
|
Term
| If an employer provides safety equipment, will they be held to be responsible for employees who injure themselves because they failed to use the equipment? |
|
Definition
NO - the employer must also insist/encourage the employee to use the equipment. If the employee still refuses, the employer MAY not be liable for any injuries.
Bus v Slough Metals [1973]
Yorkshire Traction Co v Walter Searby [2003] |
|
|
Term
| Statute imposes some H&S measures which employers should take. The duties imposed can be split in to two distinct parts. What are they? |
|
Definition
1) The duty to create a safe system (through training, safety equipment etc.)
2) The duty to operate that safe system (through supervision)
THE EXTENT OF THE REQUIRED SUPERVISION WILL VARY WITH THE KIND OF WORK BEING DONE AND THE RISKS ATTACHED TO IT. |
|
|
Term
| Does the law assume that employees will always have proper regard for their own safety? |
|
Definition
| NO - it falls on the employer to take ultimate responsibility for devising as safe a system of work as the circumstances allow |
|
|
Term
| General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas [1953] |
|
Definition
EMPLOYEES WILL NOT ALWAYS HAVE PROPER REGARD FOR THEIR SAFETY. THEREFORE, IT FALLS ON THE EMPLOYER TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEVISING A SAFE SYSTEM OF WORK
In this case, V = window cleaner. V had been balancing precariously trying to keep the window open, and had fallen.
HELD - employer was liable... employer's duty to devise safe ways of performing the tasks required of the employee and to instruct them accordingly... employees will not always have proper regard for their own safety. |
|
|
Term
| As we know, the duties of the employer are ultimately to provide a safe work environment (but as we know, this covers many elements). To what standard must the employer provide this duty? |
|
Definition
| To a reasonable standard. It is not an absolute duty, the employer is not expected to prevent EVERYTHING. |
|
|
Term
| Woods v Durable Suites [1953] |
|
Definition
AN EMPLOYER MUST PROVIDE A SAFE WORK ENVIRONMENT TO A REASONABLE STANDARD. IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE DUTY, EMPLOYER CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO DO EVERYTHING
'I do not believe it to be a part of the common law of England that an employer is bound, through his foremen, to stand over workmen of age and experience every moment they are working and every time they cease to work, in order to see that they do what they are supposed to do' |
|
|
Term
| McDermid v Nash Dredging and Reclamation [1987] |
|
Definition
| A SAFE SYSTEM OF WORK MUST NOT JUST BE DEVISED, BUT ALSO IMPLEMENTED AND OPERATED |
|
|
Term
| Withers v Perry Chain Co [1961] |
|
Definition
AN EMPLOYER MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AN EMPLOYEE'S PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ACT ACCORDINGLY
In this case, V had extremely sensitive skin. V had to work with chemicals.
HELD - the DoC to V was not breached by the employee failing to provide alternative work that did not include chemicals. (employer had no such work available) |
|
|
Term
| Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] |
|
Definition
| AN EMPLOYER MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT 'THIN-SKIN' CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EMPLOYEE (ILLNESS ETC.) AND THEN THE DOC THEY OWE TO THEM ADJUSTS ACCORDINGLY |
|
|
Term
| Hunter v Ridge Manufacturing Company [1957] |
|
Definition
| EMPLOYER WHO KNOWS / OUGHT TO KNOW THAT AN EMPLOYEE = PRACTICAL JOKER MAY BE IN BREACH OF HIS COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE COMPETENT FELLOW EMPLOYEES. |
|
|
Term
| Smith v Crossley Bros [1951] |
|
Definition
| WHERE AN EMPLOYEE PLAYS A ONE-OFF PRACTICAL JOKE, THE EMPLOYER WILL NOT BE IN BREACH OF HIS DUTY TO PROVIDE COMPETENT FELLOW EMPLOYEES. |
|
|
Term
| When considering 'competent fellow employees' and 'practical-jokers', which cases should you compare? |
|
Definition
Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Company [1957]
Smith v Crossley Bros [1951]
Hudson = habitual practical joker = employer who knows /should know = failed in his duty to provide competent fellow employees.
Smith = one-off practical joke = employers not in breach of their duty to provide competent fellow employees. |
|
|
Term
| If an incompetent fellow worker causes injury to another employee (X), what can X do? |
|
Definition
1) Sue employer for breach of Doc to provide a safe work place w. competent fellow employees
2) Sue fellow employee |
|
|
Term
| If a competent fellow worker causes injury to another employee (X), what can X do? |
|
Definition
1) Sue employer vicariously (can't sue for breach of duty as fellow employee = competent, therefore = no breach)
2) Sue fellow employee |
|
|
Term
| Harrison v Lawrence Murphy & Co. [1998] |
|
Definition
| W.R.T AN EMPLOYER'S DUTY TO PROVIDE COMPETENT FELLOW EMPLOYEES... AN EMPLOYER CAN ALSO BE LIABLE FOR BULLYING AS WELL AS SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY A FELLOW EMPLOYEE. |
|
|
Term
| McWilliams v Sir William Arrol [1962] |
|
Definition
FACTUAL CAUSATION - IF THE EMPLOYER FAILS TO PROVIDE SAFETY EQUIPMENT, BUT THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT IF THERE HAD BEEN SAFETY EQUIPMENT THE E WOULDN'T HAVE USED IT = FAILS FACTUAL CAUSATION (BUT-FOR)
C = V's widow
V died while erecting scaffolding & employer had provided no safety belts.
HOWEVER...(evidence that V wouldn't have worn the belt anyway)(Judge's words)
1) the combined effect of evidence was that steel erectors never wear safety belts except in certain very special circumstances. No witness claimed to have seen a safety belt worn in the course of such work.
2) There was overwhelming evidence that the V did not normally wear a safety belt
3) It was shown that the V had been engaged in erecting scaffolds at a greater height from that which he fell, where belts had been available, but V had not worn them
HELD - EVEN IF THE EMPLOYER HAD PROVIDED SAFETY BELTS, THE V WOULDN'T HAVE USED IT = FAILS CAUSATION |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
THE DUTY ON EMPLOYERS IS TO TAKE REASONABLE CARE (REASONABLY COMPETENT EMPLOYER). IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE DUTY.
In this case = factory flooded, V fell over, but no one else fell over or injured themselves. Therefore, the danger was not such as to impose upon a reasonable employer the obligation to close the factory. |
|
|
