Employers Liability Flashcards

(35 cards)

1
Q

Employers primary liability

A

only applies between employees and their employers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Test for an employee

A

Ready Mixed Concrete

  • Remuneration
  • Control
  • Other Contractual Provisions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

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

A

Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English

- crushed in a mine shaft by a mine car

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

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

A

McDermid v Nash Dredging.

- accident on a ship due to negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Employers are liable for negligently selecting incompetent staff

A

Black v Fife Coal

- mining disaster

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

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

A

Hudson v Ridge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

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

A

(Smith v Crossley)

- practical joke

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

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

A

Smith v Charles Baker

- stone was dropped on him

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Work ‘equipment’ has a wide meaning

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

An employer must provide safe equipment and enforce its use

A

Bux v Slough Metals

- employee had stopped wearing safety goggles after they fogged up

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

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

A

Qualcast v Hayes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

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

A

Woods v Durable Suites

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

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

A

Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

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

A

General Cleaning v Christmas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Employers must take into account their employee’s personal characteristics

A

Paris v Stepney BC (employee with one eye)

withers v Perry Chain (employee particularly susceptible to dermatitis)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

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

A

Coxall v Goodyear

17
Q

A safe system of work must be devised and implemented

A

McDermid v Nash Dredging

18
Q

Employees must provide training and keep it up to date

A

Speed v Swift

19
Q

Police must provide officers with backup when they need it

A

Mullaney v CC West Midlands Police

20
Q

Employers must provide warning when working with chemicals

A

Pape v Cumbria CC

- cleaner given gloves but not told to wear them

21
Q

Employers have a duty not to overload the employee with work

A

Walker v Northumberland CC

- mental breakdown as a result of demand of work

22
Q

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

A

Thompson v Smiths Shiprepairers Ltd

23
Q

Instances of safety and liability of employers

A

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).

24
Q

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

A

Wilsons v Tyneside Cleaning

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

25
The standard of care for an employer is objective
Latimer
26
An employer will not have breached the standard of care if they have acted reasonably
Woods v Durable Suites
27
The 'but for' test for employers
McWilliams v William Arrol | - employee was not supplied with a harness but would not have worn it even if he had been
28
An employee's unreasonableness could be a novus actus
Woods v Durable Suites
29
Acts or Omissions of the claimant are unlikely to breach the chain of causation
BUX v Slough Metals
30
Any damage that is reasonably foreseeable can be recovered
The Wagon Mound No. 1
31
The Claimant can recover for
- Assaults at work (Rahman v Arearose) - Damage sustained through overwork (Johnstone v Bloomsbury) Psychiatric damage, including stress-relating problems (Walker v Northumberland)
32
Volenti is rarely successful in employers liability
Bowater v Rowley | - horse ran off, throwing him from his cart
33
Contributory negligence is a commonly used defence
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
34
Reduction in damages by 40% when employer took his goggles off when they misted up and was not stopped by his supervisor
Bux v Slough Metals | - employee stopped wearing safety goggles as they were fogging up
35
Reduction in damages by 20% when employee exposed himself to unnecessary risk.
Jones v Livox Quarries