Employers Liability Flashcards
Employers primary liability
only applies between employees and their employers
Test for an employee
Ready Mixed Concrete
- Remuneration
- Control
- Other Contractual Provisions
Employers owe a duty to provide competent staff, safe premises and equipment, and safe systems of work
Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English
- crushed in a mine shaft by a mine car
A duty between employers and employees is personal and non-delegable
McDermid v Nash Dredging.
- accident on a ship due to negligence
Employers are liable for negligently selecting incompetent staff
Black v Fife Coal
- mining disaster
If the employee is a known practical joker or a bull the employer is liable
Hudson v Ridge
If an incident with an employee is a one off, and the employer does not know, then the employer will not be liable
(Smith v Crossley)
- practical joke
Work ‘premises’ include the land itself and anything taking place on the land
Smith v Charles Baker
- stone was dropped on him
Work ‘equipment’ has a wide meaning
e.g. a ship (Coltman v Bibby Tankers)
An employer must provide safe equipment and enforce its use
Bux v Slough Metals
- employee had stopped wearing safety goggles after they fogged up
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
Qualcast v Hayes
Employees are also obliged to take reasonable care and to use equipment sensibly
Woods v Durable Suites
Even if the equipment is defective due to a 3rd party’s fault, the employer is liable
Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969
Employers must take into account that workmen may have a disregard for their own safety
General Cleaning v Christmas
Employers must take into account their employee’s personal characteristics
Paris v Stepney BC (employee with one eye)
withers v Perry Chain (employee particularly susceptible to dermatitis)
Employees have a duty to sack an employee for their own good
Coxall v Goodyear
A safe system of work must be devised and implemented
McDermid v Nash Dredging
Employees must provide training and keep it up to date
Speed v Swift
Police must provide officers with backup when they need it
Mullaney v CC West Midlands Police
Employers must provide warning when working with chemicals
Pape v Cumbria CC
- cleaner given gloves but not told to wear them
Employers have a duty not to overload the employee with work
Walker v Northumberland CC
- mental breakdown as a result of demand of work
Employers have a duty to protect the hearing of employees in a noisy work environment
Thompson v Smiths Shiprepairers Ltd
Instances of safety and liability of employers
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).
Injuries that occur on the premiss fo a 3rd party: the employer can still be liable, but the standard is lower.
Wilsons v Tyneside Cleaning
- window cleaner was injured on someone else’s premises.
The standard of care for an employer is objective
Latimer
An employer will not have breached the standard of care if they have acted reasonably
Woods v Durable Suites
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
An employee’s unreasonableness could be a novus actus
Woods v Durable Suites
Acts or Omissions of the claimant are unlikely to breach the chain of causation
BUX v Slough Metals
Any damage that is reasonably foreseeable can be recovered
The Wagon Mound No. 1
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)
Volenti is rarely successful in employers liability
Bowater v Rowley
- horse ran off, throwing him from his cart
Contributory negligence is a commonly used defence
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
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
Reduction in damages by 20% when employee exposed himself to unnecessary risk.
Jones v Livox Quarries
