Employers Liability Flashcards
What are the three duties set out in Wilsons & Clyde Coal regarding employers liability?
A duty of the employer to provide:
- Compettent staff
- Adequate material
- A proper system of work and supervision
A duty of the employer to provide:
- Competent staff
- Adequate material
- A proper system of work and supervision
is set out in which case?
Wilsons & Clyde Coal
Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing
The duty to provide competent fellow workers arises where an employer knows about the risk aparticular worker is posing to fellow wokers.
The duty to provide competent fellow workers arises where an employer knows about the risk aparticular worker is posing to fellow wokers. Which case?
Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing
Which section of which Act gives employers liability for the faulty machinery of third parties?
Employers Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1960 Section 1 (1)(b)
What are the torts under the heading of employers liability?
Common Law Negligence
Breach of Statutory Duty
Vicarious Liability
General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas. What is the ruling?
An employer must assess the place of work, wherever an employee is sent.
What are the four aspects of the rule in Wilsons & Clyde Coal?
- Competent fellow staff
- Adequate fellow workers
- A proper system of work and supervisions
- A safe workplace (Latimer v AEC)
Which is the leading case on stress at work?
Walker v Northumberland County Council
Which case regarding employers liability for stress sets out guidelines? Which case confirms?
Hatton v Sutherland, Court of Appeal.
Confirmed by Barber, HoL
What is Lady Hale’s key test as set out in Barber v Somerset County Council
Is stress reasonably foreseeable for this particular employee?
What are the guidelines in Hatton v Sutherland?
The nature of the work carried out by the employee.
Signs from the employee.
What are the the types of statutory duties with regards to damages?
- Statutes that specifically exclude tortious liability
- Statutes that specifically allow it
- Statutes that ate silent on tortious liability
What are the factors that must be used to interrogate a statute to see if a civil claim is possible?
Factor 1:
Does the statute specifically protect a limited class of people?
(Lornho v Shell)
Factor 2:
Whether the statute provides for any sanction.
Factor 3:
Whether the sanction is effective (Groves v Lord Wimborne).
In breach of statutory duty is there ever a need to look at remoteness?
No, if the claim satisfies the mischief rule, as in Gorris v Scott, remoteness is already proven.
Is a worker an employee or an independent contractor? Which factors?
Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister for Pensions
- Employees agree that in consideration of a wage they will provide services
- Employees agree to subject themselves to the control of their employer
- Employees act in accordance with a contract of service.
What are the three duties from Wilsons & Clyde Coal v English?
- Competent staff
- Adequate plant and materials
- A safe system of work
In which case does it make clear that contributory negligence will generally not be found against workers who undertake repetitive work?
Caswell v Powell
Which three cases ensure that the statutes match up with the facts for a claim to be taken?
- Chipchase v British Titan- The facts must sit within the statute
- Hartley v Mayoh. The claimant must be strictly within the class of people protected by the statute
- Gorris v Scott The damage incurred must be the right sort of damage under the statute
The facts must sit within the statute. Which case?
Chipchase v British Titan
The claimant must be within the class of claimants covered. Which case?
Hartley v Mayoh
What are the three criteria for vicarious liability to apply?
- The worker must be an employee
- The employee commited a tort
- The employee commited a tort in the course of his employment
What are the two cases to mention regarding employee, not a contractor?
Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister for Pensions
Autoclenz v Belcher
Punching a customer was not in the course of employment
Warren v Henleys
Unloading oil whilst smoking was in the course of employment
Century Instance v NI Road Transport Board
Actions specifically prohibited may still count as in the course of employment. Which two caes about picking people up contradict?
Rose v Plenty- Picking up someone to help with the milkround was in the course
Twine v Bean’s Express- Giving a lift to a hitchiker wasn’t in the course of employment
Which two cases contradict about employees taking “a frolic of their own”?
Joel v Morrison- Taking a long detour from a route for a purpose unconnected to employment was on a frolic of their own
Driving to get lunch off route as in Hilton v Thomas Burton was not on a frolic
Can employers indemnify themselves against riskj?
Yes. Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage
