Case Law Flashcards

1
Q

Summers v Frost 1955

A

Absolute duty
Hand in contact with grinding wheel that should have been completely guarded
Absolute duty - guarding to afford complete protection to careless or inattentive worker
Ruled that there had been a breach of statutory duty

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

Marshall v Gotham 1954

A

Practicable duty
Mine roof collapsed, previously tested but not propped. Collapse due to unforeseen geological fault not known about.
Risk of roof collapse not reasonably foreseeable
Employer not liable because had taken reasonable steps to secure roof

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

Edwards v National Coal Board 1949

A

Reasonably practicable duty
Miner killed when road subsided, no timber supports
Other sections supported
NCB liable as cost to install supports was not prohibitive compared to the risk

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

Lister v Romford Ice Cold Storage 1957

A

Vicarious liability - negligence of employees
Father run over by son driving truck
Employee breached duty implied in employment contract to take due care

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

McArdle v Andmac Roofing 1967

A

Vicarious liability - negligence of contractors
subcontractor hired to repair roof
employee fell through gap left
Main contractor had duty to supervise and ensure gaps not left

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

Driver v Willett (Contractors) 1969

A

Vicarious liability - joint liability
Claimant injured when hoist used unsafely
Sued safety consultants who failed to advise ref lifting equipment

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

Austin Rover v Inspector of Factories 1989

A

Vicarious liability - independent contractors
paint sump cleaned by contractors
employee killed by flash fire
instructed not to use highly flammable thinners from pipe - not followed
contractor required to provide own thinners

ruling - not reasonable to take measures that took into account misuse

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

Donoghue & Stevenson 1932

A

Duty of care - neighbour principle

helped establish modern law on negligence

friend bought Donoghue ginger beer
started drinking
rotten snail fell into glass
suffered shock and stomach illness

sued manufacturer because she did not have a contract with the cafe that sold the ginger beer

court ruling - manufacturer had duty of care to the consumer of his goods
needed to take reasonable care to prevent injury

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

Wagonmound Overseas Tankship Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co 1961

A

Foreseeability

Mort owned wharf
Ship owned by Tankship leaked oil whcih was carried to Mort#s wharf
Told not flammable
Welding & burning works
Wharf destroyed when oil caught fire

Ruling - defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that the oil would catch fire. Therefore not liable because damage was too remote

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

Adsett v K&L Steelfounders & Engineers 1953

A

Practicable
Adsett contracted pneumoconiosis fro breathing silica dust
Shovelling sand onto a grate
Dust extractor subsequently fitted when employer thought of it

Measure only practicable if it is within current knowledge and invention, and known to be used within the application in the industry

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

Stark v Post Office 2000

A

Specific wording to define an absolute duty

Stark injured when brakes of bike provided by Post Office failed and he fell off.
Claimed breach of sction 5 of PUWER 1998 - ‘work equipment shall be maintained in efficient state, in efficient working order and good repair

Post office liable - evidence that bike had been maintained. But brakes failed so not in efficient state, efficient working order and good repair

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

R v Associated Octel 1996

A

Prosecution HSWA Section 3(1) - liability for safety of others affected

Asscociated Octel closed down production processes at Ellesmere Port for pre-planned maintenance
Repair of tank lining being done by contractor Resin Glass Products Ltd
Employees of RGP smashed lamp, ignited acetone vapours, was badly burned

RGP convicted under Section 2, Associated Octel under Section 3(1)

Appealed to House of Lords

Duty to prevent exposure to risks arising from undertaking extends to independent contractors whose works are necessary to the employer’s business

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

R v British Steel 1995

A

Prosecution HSWA Section 3(1) - criminal controlling mind

British Steel repositioning a section of steel platform, cutting platform and moving it.
Supervision & equipment provided by British Steel, labour by contractor
Platfom cut free by contractor, not secured, struck & killed one.

Convicted under section 3(1), appeal to Appeal Court.
Not able to avoid liability on basis that a company ‘directing mind’ was not involved but had taken reasonable care to delegate supervision

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

R v Chargot Ltd 2008

A

Prosecution HSWA Section 2

Dumper truck overturned killing employee
No witnesses
Overturned when descending ramp, buried under spoil being carried
Defence said details of exact failure of company needed

Referred to House of Lords
Case arose from fatal accident which resulted from employer’s failure to ensure safety / absence of risk

Onus on defence to prove everything reasonably practicable was done

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

R v HTM 2006

A

Foreseeability & Management Regs Section 21

Two employees moved lighting tower at motorway contraflow.
Didn’t lower tower, struck overhead power lines, electrocuted

HTM denied liability as actions of employees could not have been foreseen and employees were trained

HSE contested defence - foreseeability irrelevant, and Management Regs Section 21 - nothing in regs shall operate to afford an employer a defence in any criminal proceedings by reason of any act or default of an employee

Court of Appeal - employer still had to demonstrate that done everything reasonably practicable to ensure skills, instruction, procedures, supervision, safe equipment etc

Reg 21 does not stop employers pointing to act of employee as part of argument they had done all reasonably practicable

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

R v Nelson Group 1998

A
Section 3(1) HSWA
Isolated act of employee as a defence

A trained gas fitter left a gas fire in a condition that exposed the house owner to H&S risks

Court of Appeal - Gas fitter’s negligent act did not preclude employer from using reasonably practicable as a defence
Successful appeal
If systematic negligence, then employer not done enough - isolated incident

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

R v P 2007

A

Section 37 HSWA
Criminal neglect

6 yr old thrown from forklift, passenger collided with second forklift with unclamped roll of paper
Prosecution stated that managing director had ultimate responsibility
Defence said that unaware of the practice

Court of Appeal ruling on what had to be proved to show neglect of company director. Ought to have known, therefore neglectful

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

R v Porter 2008

A
Section 3 (HSWA)
Risk assessment - trivial risks

Porter = headmaster at private school
Boy jumped down steps, hit head
Prosecuted for insufficient supervision.
Had suitable & sufficient risk assessment

Acquitted on appeal to Court of Appeal
nothing wrong with the steps, risk was no different to that outside of school, could not have been identified by risk assessment.
Needs to be a ‘real risk’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

R v Swan Hunter 1982

A
Section 2(2)(c) HSWA
Provision of info to 3rd parties

Fire on HMS Glasgow
Caused by sub contractors - didn’t disconnect oxygen hose
8 killed
Info on oxygen enrichment given to employees but not to contractors

Convicted - duty to inform non-employees of known risks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Caparo Industries v Dickman 1990

A

Duty of care test

Company Fidelity target of takeover by Caparo and started buying shares
Dickman prepared accounts but Fidelity were actuially in a worse state.
Caparo said that they had relied on the accounts in their investment decision

Appeal to House of Lords - no duty of care
Accounts produced for the benefit of existing shareholders

3 fold test for duty of care:

harm muse be reasonably foreseeable
relationship of proximity between defendant & claimant
must be fair, just & reasonable to impose liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd 2008

A

Defendant held liable for suicide
Proximity

Corr accident, metal plate dropped hitting almost severring ear.
Post traumatic stress disorder, headaches, difficult sleeping
Depression & suicide

Parties agreed that suicide resulted from injury
Question of whether damage was too remote?

House of Lords ruling - suicide as result of psychological condition as result of employer negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services 2002

A

Joint liability, causation

Fairchild worked for a number of employers as a subcontractor for Leeds City Council working at different sites where exposed to asbestos
Contracted mesothelioma
Could not identify which source had caused this

House of Lords - joint liability as all had increased risk of harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd (1952)

A

Contributory negligence

employee hitched lift on towbar of tracked excavator
driver was unaware
dumper truck drive into back, crushing employee, legs amputated

Claimant contributory negligent - ought to have foreseen that he might get hurt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Latimer v AEC Ltd 1953

A

Reasonable care

Factory flooded after storm, mixed with cooking oil
Sawdust available but not enough fro whole floor
Latimer slipped when carrying a heavy bin
Damages claimed for floor not properly maintained

House of Lords ruling - transient condition of otherwise sound floor. Employer had taken reasonable steps

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffith 1946
Vicarious liability for negligence of contractor Coggins stevedore hired crane driver from Mersey Docks Driver negligently operated crane injuring 3rd party Contract stated that crane driver was temp employee of stevedore House of Lords ruling - Mersey Docks liable. test is whether the employer dictates what work is to be done AND how the work is to be done
26
Paris v Stepney 1951
Higher duty of care for vulnerable Paris worked in Stepney Borough Council truck maintenance garage Blind in one eye, known by employer Piece of metal into good eye blinding him Should have been given goggles Duty of care to each individual employee Extra precautions needed for more vulnerable
27
Sutherland v Hatton 2002
Stress at work Court of Appeal heard 4 appeals by employers against awards to employees who suffered stress induced psychiatric illness Ruling - not liable unless illness was reasonably foreseeable No duty on employer to enquire about employee mental health Take what employee says at face value unless good reason not to believe Employer in breach if fails to take reasonable steps - look at size of riks, size of harm, cost to prevent harm. Not likely to be in breach if employer provides access to counselling
28
R v Mara 1986
Section 3(1) HSWA, Section 37 HSWA Mara had contract to clean a shop Monday to Friday Electrical cleaning machines left at store Store employee used on a Saturday & was electrocuted due to damaged cable Convicted as consented / connived as included how Mara had left their machines
29
R v Science Museum 1993
Section 3(1) HSWA legionella in Science Museum air conditioning cooling tower Conviction upheld - only need to prove that persons were put at risk, not that anyone was actually harmed
30
Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board 1942
Negligence of employees - vicarious liability petrol lorry was insured by insurance company against 3rd party liability Lorry driver lit cigarette, caused explosion Ruling - transport company was liable as caused by act of employee when fulfilling his work duties
31
Summers v Frost - year
1955
32
Marshall v Gotham - year
1954
33
Edwards v National Coal Board - year
1949
34
Lister v Romford Ice Cold Storage - year
1957
35
McArdle v Andmac Roofing - year
1967
36
Driver v Willett Contracting - year
1969
37
Austin Rover v Inspector of Factories - year
1989
38
Donoghue v Stevenson - year
1932
39
Wagonmound Overseas Tankship v Mort Dock & Engineering - year
1961
40
Adsett v K&L Steelfounders - year
1953
41
Stark v Post Office - year
2000
42
R v Associated Octel - year
1996
43
R v British Steel - year
1995
44
R v Chargot - year
2008
45
R v HTM - year
2006
46
R v Nelson Group - year
1998
47
R v P - year
2007
48
R v Porter - year
2008
49
R v Swan Hunter - year
1982
50
Caparo Industries v Dickman - year
1990
51
Corr v IBC Vehicles - year
2008
52
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services - year
2002
53
Jones v Livox Quarries - year
1952
54
Latimer v AEC - year
1953
55
Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffith - year
1946
56
Paris v Stepney - year
1951
57
Sutherland v Hatton - year
2002
58
R v Mara - year
1986
59
R v Science Museum - year
1993
60
Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board - year
1942
61
Wilson and Clyde Coal v English 1938
Employer's common law duties Miner injured at work, crushed by haulage plant Employer claimed safety for the mine was delegated to the employer's agent to manage the mine House Of Lords Employer can delegate performance of the duty but not the responsibility. Employer was therefore negligent, which led to injury Employer's duty - safe place of work inc access / egress, safe procedures, safe plant and equipment, competent fellow employees
62
Wilson and Clyde Coal v English - year
1938
63
Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd - year
2005
64
Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd 2005
Vicarious liability Viasystems sued for damages for a flood caused when Thermal Transfer installed air con in factory. They subcontracted the work to S&P Darnell, who then subcontracted to CAT Metalwork Services, Their employee climbed down from roof damaging sprinkler causing flood Sued all 3 contractors Judge at first instance - liability with one company only, CAT, as two entities could no be vicariously liable for the same act. Court of Appeal - look at negligent act and who gave instructions in relation to it. Therefore joint vicarious liability between CAT and S&P Darnell
65
Rose v Plenty - year
1976
66
Rose v Plenty 1976
Vicarious liability Plenty was a milkman Not allowed to permit children onto any vehicle Signs to this effect Rose was 13 year old schoolboy - helped Plenty Fell and broke leg due to Plenty's negligent driving On appeal, employer vicariously liable because boy was helping the milkman in the course of his duties.