Employers Liability Flashcards
(19 cards)
What is employers liability
Claims by employees against their employers, for physical injuries sustained in the workplace during course of employment.
Three causes of action one can claim in Employers Liability
1.) Primary (Direct Liability of employer)
2.) Vicarious Liability ** (one employee injures another)**
3.) Breach of Statutory Duty (Reduced by Enterprise Act 2013)
Employers Duty of Care, where is it explained from?
Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd
Key points on duty of care to establish
- Employer/Employee relationship is now an established duty relationship
* Duty of Care is needed (not SL)
- Non-delegable -> Employer entitled to delegate this duty to employees/ind contractors -> But they are the ones liable
- Commonly involves Positive Acts (putting in place safety training + risk assesments)
Quartet of Duties that form DoC
1) Safe System of Work
2) Safe Place of Work
3) Competent staff
4) Safe tools and equipment
Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English
Is there an overriding sub duty that overrides the 4 duties?
‘the law expects employer D to ‘keep reasonably abreast … where there is developing knowledge’ about safety, or risks, or the pre- cautions that could reasonably be taken to protect employee C’
Stokes v Guest
Duty of Safe Tools and Equipment (case + requirements)
** General Cleaning Contractors** - Cleaning sash windows + stood on the window still inside the building
1.) To take reasonable care to provide proper equipment for C
2.) To reasonably maintain that equipment in proper order
3.) To provide C with adequate instructions in the use of the equipment
Duty to provide safe workplace
- Includes advice + training
- Not confined to employer’s premises also work off site
- Does not extend to one off incidents from events on other premises
Wilson v Tyneside
Duty to provide a safe system of work
- Reasonable steps to devise, maintain and enforce a safe system of work
- Specify the method working where managerial control would require that such method not be left to the employee
- Encourage safe devices or procedures in the workplace, through supervision and oversight
- Implement procedures if safe system of work becomes unsafe
Cases where duty to provide safe sytem of work was breached
General Cleaning Contractors
- Mr. Christmas was a window cleaner employed by General Cleaning Contractors.
- He was cleaning windows on the outside of a building.
- To do this, he had to stand on the window sill with the window partly open behind him.
While doing this, the window unexpectedly shut, and he fell and was seriously injured.
Duty to provide competent co-employees (elements
- Manage employees that pose threat to C
- Ensure each employee has recieevd adequate safety training
Cases where Competent Co-employees has been discussed
Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd
- E1 (habitual joker) tripped up multiple employees as a joke
- D reprimanded him many times and one time an E2 got tripped up as a result
Sub-duty to provide competent employees engaged
Where can an Employer be liable via an Independent Contractor?
- Defective Equipment - Davie v New Merton Board Mills
- Employer paid for equipment from a reliable manufacturer and the** IC **fit it incorrectly -> Initially not held liable
- Employers Liability Defective Equipment Act 1969 s1(1)
General Rule for Breach of Duty
Standard of Care - Reasonable Employer
Examples of Breach of Duty
**Paris v Stepney Borough Council ** - C (blind in one eye) lost other eye at work (although goggles not standard) -> Still liable
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council - In emergency situations some risk is allowed to potentially save ones life
Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP
Breach of Duty - A risk assesment should have been done to see other employers were giving equipment
- Kennedy travelling between clients home as her job
- Slipped on ice
- Was not provided with **correct equipment **
Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd
Breach of Duty
Chell worked for Roltec, but he was working on a site run by Tarmac.
There was tension between Roltec and Tarmac workers.
A Tarmac worker named Heath played a dangerous prank: he put pellet targets near Chell’s ear and hit them with a hammer.
This caused serious hearing damage to Chell.
Heath’s job had nothing to do with pellet targets — it was not part of his work duties.
The court decided:
No vicarious liability for Tarmac:
Heath’s actions were not closely connected to his job.
So, Tarmac was not responsible for what he did.
No negligence by Tarmac:
While horseplay or bad behaviour can sometimes make injury foreseeable, in this case it wasn’t foreseeable.
There was no clear warning that something like this would happen, so Tarmac wasn’t expected to prevent it.
Causation
Normal Rules apply but factor in:
If better safety precautions had been provided, would the claimant have used them? McWilliams
