Term
| Common Law Duty of Employers |
|
Definition
Wilsons & Clyde Coal
4 requirements:
- duty to provide safe equipment
- duty to provide safe premises
- duty to employ competent staff
- duty to provide a safe system of work |
|
|
Term
CL Duty: Safe Premises
Reasonable Care |
|
Definition
Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953]
Employer need only take REASONABLE care to make premises safe. |
|
|
Term
CL Duty: Safe Premises
Other Premises |
|
Definition
Cook v D Square Ltd
Employer must ensure that ANY premises his employers go to are safe, regardless of who owns them |
|
|
Term
CL Duty: Safe Equipment
Equipment (Definition) |
|
Definition
| Employer's liability (Defective Equipmnent) Act 1969: "Any plant and machinery, vehicle, aircraft, and clothing." Knowles v Liverpool CC: "Any article of whatever kind furnished by the employer for the purposes of his business." |
|
|
Term
CL Duty: Safe Equipment
Existing defects |
|
Definition
| S 1(1)(b) Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act: Employer is liable for defects that are not obvious or are a result of the negligence of a third party. (e.g. supplier/ manufacturer) |
|
|
Term
CL Duty: Safe System of Work
Elements |
|
Definition
Speed v Thomas Swift and Co [1943]
4 elements:
- Physical layout of the job
- Sequence in which work carried out
- provision of warnings and notices and special instructions where necessary
- Modifying the system where necessary |
|
|
Term
CL Duty: Safe System of Work (Situations)
Warning of dangers |
|
Definition
Pape v Cumbria CC
Failure to warn employees of the dangers associated with their work is a breach of duty |
|
|
Term
CL Duty: Safe System of Work (Situations)
Use of safety measures |
|
Definition
Bux v Slough Metals
Failing to ensure that the safety measures provided are used is a breach of duty |
|
|
Term
CL Duty: Safe System of Work (Situations)
Guarding against known risks |
|
Definition
Rahman v Arearose Ltd
Failing to take action to guard against known risks is a breach of duty (e.g. attack of shop workers) |
|
|
Term
CL Duty: Safe System of Work (Situations)
Protection against psychiatric injury |
|
Definition
Walker v Northumberland CC
Failing to protect an employee against the risks of psychiatric injury is a breach of duty. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Employer must ensure that he recruits competent staff and provides adequate training and supervision. (Note overlap with Vic. Li.) |
|
|
Term
Statutory Duty: Actionable Breach?
Express Statement in the Statute |
|
Definition
Some statutes will expressly state that a claim in tort will be allowed if they are breached
e.g. Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971 |
|
|
Term
Statutory Duty: Actionable Breach?
Statute is silent |
|
Definition
Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (no2) [1982]
Test for deciding if a statute allows a civil claim:
- If the act creates an obligation enforceable in a specific manner, no other enforcement may be used.
- Tortious claims only allowed if Act protects a class (rather than community at large) |
|
|
Term
Statutory Duty: Elements of the tort
Duty owed to the claimant? |
|
Definition
Hartley v Mayoh and Co. [1954]
If the statute provides protection to a limited class, then C must establish they are part of that class. |
|
|
Term
Statutory Duty: Elements of the tort
Breach of duty by D |
|
Definition
Strict liability: John Summers and Sons Ltd v Frost
Not strict? Argue for/ against |
|
|
Term
Statutory Duty: Elements of the tort
Damage |
|
Definition
Gorris v Scott
Damage suffered by D must be of the type/ kind the statute intended to protect against |
|
|
Term
Statutory Duty: Elements of the tort
Causation |
|
Definition
- But- for Test (Cork v Kirby MacLean)
- Breach materially contributed to the damage (Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Consent not available to employer who is in breach of his own duty. (Wheeler v New Merton Board Mills Ltd)
- Available where employer is being sued vicariously for colleague's breach of duty (ICI ltd v Shatwell [1965]) |
|
|
Term
Defences:
Contributory Negligence |
|
Definition
| Generally available. However, courts reluctant to apply in cases of factory workers (Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd.) |
|
|
