Employers Liability

Question 1

Employers primary liability

Answer 1

only applies between employees and their employers

Question 2

Test for an employee

Answer 2

Ready Mixed Concrete

• Remuneration
• Control
• Other Contractual Provisions

Question 3

Employers owe a duty to provide competent staff, safe premises and equipment, and safe systems of work

Answer 3

Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English

- crushed in a mine shaft by a mine car

Question 4

A duty between employers and employees is personal and non-delegable

Answer 4

McDermid v Nash Dredging.

- accident on a ship due to negligence

Question 5

Employers are liable for negligently selecting incompetent staff

Answer 5

Black v Fife Coal

- mining disaster

Question 6

If the employee is a known practical joker or a bull the employer is liable

Answer 6

Hudson v Ridge

Question 7

If an incident with an employee is a one off, and the employer does not know, then the employer will not be liable

Answer 7

(Smith v Crossley)

- practical joke

Question 8

Work ‘premises’ include the land itself and anything taking place on the land

Answer 8

Smith v Charles Baker

- stone was dropped on him

Question 9

Work ‘equipment’ has a wide meaning

Answer 9

e.g. a ship (Coltman v Bibby Tankers)

Question 10

An employer must provide safe equipment and enforce its use

Answer 10

Bux v Slough Metals

- employee had stopped wearing safety goggles after they fogged up

Question 11

If the employee is an experienced worker who is aware of the risks and choses not to use protective equipment that has been provided, this is a relevant factor

Answer 11

Qualcast v Hayes

Question 12

Employees are also obliged to take reasonable care and to use equipment sensibly

Answer 12

Woods v Durable Suites

Question 13

Even if the equipment is defective due to a 3rd party’s fault, the employer is liable

Answer 13

Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969

Question 14

Employers must take into account that workmen may have a disregard for their own safety

Answer 14

General Cleaning v Christmas

Question 15

Employers must take into account their employee’s personal characteristics

Answer 15

Paris v Stepney BC (employee with one eye)

withers v Perry Chain (employee particularly susceptible to dermatitis)

Question 16

Employees have a duty to sack an employee for their own good

Answer 16

Coxall v Goodyear

Question 17

A safe system of work must be devised and implemented

Answer 17

McDermid v Nash Dredging

Question 18

Employees must provide training and keep it up to date

Answer 18

Speed v Swift

Question 19

Police must provide officers with backup when they need it

Answer 19

Mullaney v CC West Midlands Police

Question 20

Employers must provide warning when working with chemicals

Answer 20

Pape v Cumbria CC

- cleaner given gloves but not told to wear them

Question 21

Employers have a duty not to overload the employee with work

Answer 21

Walker v Northumberland CC

- mental breakdown as a result of demand of work

Question 22

Employers have a duty to protect the hearing of employees in a noisy work environment

Answer 22

Thompson v Smiths Shiprepairers Ltd

Question 23

Instances of safety and liability of employers

Answer 23

Woods v Durable Suites - not liable (employee had chosen not to wear barrier cream provided)
Clifford v Challen - liable (site foreman had discouraged using barrier cream, resulting in dermatitis).

Question 24

Injuries that occur on the premiss fo a 3rd party: the employer can still be liable, but the standard is lower.

Answer 24

Wilsons v Tyneside Cleaning

- window cleaner was injured on someone else’s premises.

Question 25

The standard of care for an employer is objective

Answer 25

Latimer

Question 26

An employer will not have breached the standard of care if they have acted reasonably

Answer 26

Woods v Durable Suites

Question 27

The ‘but for’ test for employers

Answer 27

McWilliams v William Arrol

- employee was not supplied with a harness but would not have worn it even if he had been

Question 28

An employee’s unreasonableness could be a novus actus

Answer 28

Woods v Durable Suites

Question 29

Acts or Omissions of the claimant are unlikely to breach the chain of causation

Answer 29

BUX v Slough Metals

Question 30

Any damage that is reasonably foreseeable can be recovered

Answer 30

The Wagon Mound No. 1

Question 31

The Claimant can recover for

Answer 31

• Assaults at work (Rahman v Arearose)
• Damage sustained through overwork (Johnstone v Bloomsbury)
  Psychiatric damage, including stress-relating problems (Walker v Northumberland)

Question 32

Volenti is rarely successful in employers liability

Answer 32

Bowater v Rowley

- horse ran off, throwing him from his cart

Question 33

Contributory negligence is a commonly used defence

Answer 33

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

Question 34

Reduction in damages by 40% when employer took his goggles off when they misted up and was not stopped by his supervisor

Answer 34

Bux v Slough Metals

- employee stopped wearing safety goggles as they were fogging up

Question 35

Reduction in damages by 20% when employee exposed himself to unnecessary risk.

Answer 35

Jones v Livox Quarries