employer's liability Flashcards
(6 cards)
scope of the duty
Wilson and Clyde Co Ltd v English: identified the categories (which are all part of a composite duty to take care to provide for the safety of employees
- provide safe workplace, including ensuring advice and training was given
- provide employees with safe tools and equipment, keep them in safe working state and train employees in proper use of appliances
- provide a safe system of work and adequate managerial control
- provide employees with competent fellow employees
McDermid v Nash Dredging & Reclamation Co Ltd: approved the four duties, overall DoC is non-delegable- responsibility rests on D
safe workplace
Cockram v Commissioner of Police: D should have provided C with two mats to meet the duty of providing a safe system of work
Safe tools and equipment
Mason v Satelcom Ltd: D knew that C would have to gain access to the high cabinet, but gave no instruction in health and safety, or in relation to the use of equipment or in working at heights, and never provided C with any stepladders for his work- breach, negligence proven
Hannington v Mitie Cleaning Ltd: negligence proven, skip had a design fault and ought to have been kept securely open- with it being a windy yard, risk of the accident occurring was obvious
safe system of work
Cross v UGC Ltd: there were haphazard practices arranged by D in keeping the floor in safe condition and the soles of C’s work-boots free from slipper substances- breach
competent employees
Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd: if a fellow workman is not merely incompetent, but is likely to prove a source of danger to his fellow employees by his habitual conduct, then the employer is under a duty to remove that danger
standard of care and breach
Withers v Perry Chain Co Ltd: no obligation on D to provide an entirely safe workplace to C- must be reasonably safe
Paris v Stepney BC: Bolton v Stone analysis taken for precautions for an employee with one eye
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Baker v Quantum Clothing Group: explicitly approved the use of Bolam/Bolitho
Chell v Tarmac Cement: pellets, hearing loss; work didn’t involve pellets so no VL and no specific obligation to guard against this
