Employer’s Liability Flashcards
Intro:
- In the past, the courts have not protected or favored employees much. The law was of the view that since industry is fundamental and employees were paid to do their job, employers should not be heavily liable for injuries in the workplace.
- This dismissive position can be observed in early case decisions such as…
• Priestly v. Fowler = employee has injured due to the coachman’s negligence but the court did not hold him liable, fearing that such decision would led to absurd situations.
- With the elapse of time, however, the law has drastically altered its stance on the matter, recognizing that employers owe a duty to provide proper work environment and ensure their employees’ safety.
Standard of Care:
- There must exist a balance between recognizing and respecting the employee’s legal rights and not overburdening the employer.
- As stated in…
• Dalton v. Frendo = employers are no insurers!
- Another case that emphasizes this idea is…
• Bradley v. CIE = employers must meet the standard of care by acting prudently and reasonably but are not obligated to ensure absolute safety.
The Duties of an Employer are Personal and Non-Delegable:
- The employer is made personally liable for the breach of any duty or duties. Liability cannot be delegated to another individual.
• Connolly v. Dundalk = defendant was found guilty of the negligent espace of chlorine gas through piping and argued that the plumber was the responsible for such act. The court emphasized/stressed that liability cannot be OUTSOURCE to another individual or independent contractors.
- However, the court may absolve an employer of liability if the duties are discharged by another, such as in situations where the injury occurs as a result of a latent defect from an equipment purchased from a reputable supplier.
• Davie v. New Merton Board Mills Ltd = plaintiff was injured when a PARTICLE OF THE CHISEL BROKE OFF AND ENTERED HIS EYE. Employer was not found liable as he had taken all of the appropriate and reasonably measures such as buying the equipment from a reputable supplier.
Heads of Liability:
- The Common Law duties IMPOSED on the employer may be identified as:
1) Provision of a safe work environment;
2) Provision of safe equipment;
3) Provision of a safe system of work;
4) Provision of competent staff.
P.E.S.S
Heads of Liability:
- The Common Law duties IMPOSED on the employer may be identified as:
1) Provision of a safe work environment;
2) Provision of safe equipment;
3) Provision of a safe system of work;
4) Provision of competent staff.
P.E.S.S
1) Duty to Provide a Safe Place of Work =
- It is evidentially clear that an employer is under a duty to take reasonable care of his employees, which includes the provision of a safe work environment.
- It is of paramount importance that every employer takes reasonable care to ENSURE THE SAFETY of his employees.
• Latimer v. AEC Ltd = plaintiff was injured after slipping on the factory floor after a spillage. The employer was not found liable as he had taken all reasonable measures by covering the liquid on the floor with sufficient sawdust. Therefore, the employer had in fact met the standard of care.
- It is also essential to note that AN INIURY OCCURRING IN A PLACE NOT DIRECTLY UNDER THE EMPLOYER’S CONTROL WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY EXEMPT THEM FROM LIABILITY. Such factor will be analyzed/considered by the courts when determining liability.
• Mulcare v. Southern Health Board = plaintiff injured her ankle on an uneven floor while working as “home-help”. The court refused to impose liability on the employer as the employer?????
2) Duty to Provide a Safe Equipment =
- Every employer is responsible FOR ENSURING THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS PROPERLY PROVIDED with a safe equipment to CARRY OUT his or her job.
- This duty is also EXTENDED to include the PROPER MAINTENANCE of said equipment.
• Deegan v. Langan = Employer was held liable where he supplied the employee with NAILS THAT DISINTEGRATED UPON IMPACT.
• Connolly v. Dundalk =
