EL: Breach: Safe system of work

Question 1

Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English

Answer 1

Facts?
- Miner on morning shift crushed by haulage plant when leaving pit.
Principle?
- Personal duty of employer to ensure safety of the SYSTEM of work.
- Breach due to failure of qualified manager to ensure C’s safety.

Question 2

Speed v Thomas Swift Co Ltd

Answer 2

• Expanded on definition of safe system of work.
• It includes physical layout of the job, setting of the stage, sequence in which work is carried out, provision of warnings and notices and issue of special instructions.
• Should be modified/improved as circumstances arise.

Question 3

General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas

Answer 3

Facts?
- Window cleaners had developed method of holding onto window frames rather than using ladders.
- Mr Christmas got injured doing this one day.
- Claimed damages as he had not received instructions/warnings/training in relation to the type of window.
Principle?
- Employer has duty to go to site of work, assess risks, plan and organise safe system/method.

Question 4

McDermid v Nash Dredging

Answer 4

• The system should be devised AND implemented.

Question 5

Clifford v Charles

Answer 5

Facts?
- C worked with glue, contracted dermatitis from contact with skin.
- Employer provided barrier cream but not readily available and no water for him to wash.
Principle?
- Not a safe system of work. D should have done more to make cream more readily available.

Question 6

Woods v Durable

Answer 6

Facts?
- C working with glue, contracted dermatitis.
- HAD been given the cream and given instructions.
- C decided himself not to use it.
Principle?
- This WAS a safe system of work. Cannot expect C to be supervised all the time.

Question 7

Qualcast v Haynes

Answer 7

Facts?
- Special boots provided to protect workers from molten metal splashes.
Principle?
- D provided boots but did not make workers wear them.
- No breach. D had done enough. C was experienced and made decision himself.

Question 8

Bux v Slough

Answer 8

Facts?
- C splashed with molten metal, lost sight in one eye.
- D provided goggle but did not insist they were worn.
Principle?
- There WAS a breach here.
- Should have gone further than statutory duty to provide goggles and insist they were worn.
- Whether instructions/systems should be enforced as well as devised depends on nature and risk of harm liable to occur if not complied with.

BUT NOTE: where employees object/refuse safety equipment, employer may not be negligent.