Employers liability Flashcards
What is the menmonic for the structure?
I -> Introduction
Porked -> Parties/damage/claim type
Danish -> Direct claims
Elfin -> Employers claims (Primary)
Vagina -> Vicarious claims (Secondary)
Employers are obligated to have insurance by what act?
S1 Employers liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969
Wilsons and Clyde v English
- Provide reasonably competent employees
- Duty to provide safe premises, plant, equipment and materials
- A duty to provide a safe system of work
McDermid v Nash
Non-delegable duty. Cannot hire a foreman to be responsible for safety, in terms of liability. His job would be to ensure safety, but if there is a breach the company is liable
Black v Fife Coal Co.
Hired incompetent employee, was not aware of risks of carbon monoxide poisoning
Hudson v Rdige
If the employee is a habitual practical joker then the employer will be liable for any potential torts as they have a duty to provide competent employees. However if practical jokes no known about then there is no liability.
Smith v Crossley Bros
One off practical joker who put gas cannister up another guys arse. Employer not liable as it was a one off, they could not have reasonably have known he was a practical joker so was incompetent
Waters v Commissioner of POlice
Employer liable for tort if should have reasonably known of bullying/harrasment
Smith v Charles Baker
- Duty to provide safe equipment
- Volenti not accepted by courts in relation to employment as judged to be a restriction of freedom
Qualcast v Haynes
Old interpretation of duty to provide safe equipment. Only had to be provided, no duty to implement
Bux v Slough Metals
- New interpretation of duty to provide safe equipment. Extends to implementation
- Where employee does not use safety equipment can be a factor in terms of contrib neg. In this case damages reduced by 40% due to not wearing goggles despite efforts at implementation
Employers Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969
Employer liable for defective equipment
Coltman v Bibby Tanker
Wide interpretation of what is equipment
Area largely governed by statute now;
The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations
HASAWA 1974
However these acts are criminal largely
Employee has a duty to act responsibly
- O’reilly v National Rail - Employer not liable where employee hit a bomb with a hammer
- Yorkshire Traction v Walter Searby - Bus drivers voted against a protective screen. Could not then make employers liable for lack of it
Latimer v AEC
When the courts are deciding whether they have met their duty they will weigh up the cost of the precaution in comparison to the risk. Sawdust on floor was sufficient measure to risk. Closing factory was not, even though this would have completely averted the risk
Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning
Duty to provide safe premises extends to 3rd party premises
Pape v Cumbria County Council
The greater the risk of the employment the greater the duty to warn employees of risk and implement appropriate procedures
Paris v Stepney
Standard of duty dependent on the characteristics of the employee. Employee only had one eye so inflated duty to enforce safety proceudres
- So if employee very experienced lower duty of care to enforce safety procedures
General Cleaning v Chritmas
Duty to provide appropriate training for task required. Cleaning sash window
Speed v Thomas Swift
Duty to update training
Clifford v Charles Cullen
Foreman discouraged use of safety equipment. Therefore employer was liable
Woods v Durable Suites
Foreman encouraged employees to use precautions. Therefore employer not liable
- The more experienced the employee the lower the duty is for the employer to enforce safety measures
McDermid v Nash
Safety systems must be devised and implemented
Fraser v Winchester
If you asked to do something in the course of employment then you must be trained to do it
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol
An employee can be an NAI if they choose not to use the safety equipment
Rahman v Arearose Ltd
Employee assaulted in Burgerking. Harm foreseeable so not too remote
Yorkshire v Walter Selby
Bus drivers voted against a partition screen protecting from assault. Driver then tried to claim employers liability for lack of screen in assault. Not successful. Not reasonable.
Pape v Cumbria
Duty to warn employees of risk of not using safety equipment.
Alexander v midland bank
Safe system of work not provided where too high rate of work demanded causing injury.
Walker v Northumberland
Duty to provide safe system breached after employee had second stress related breakdown. First one was not claimable as not foreseeable. But second was foreseeable so employer was liable.
Cook v Bradford NHS
Duty to protect employee from attacks by 3rd parties. Defendant left in presence of psychiatric patient. Breach of safe system.
Davie v new Merton
Employer not liable for tort where harm occurred from fault in tool that was not apparent on reasonable inspection. Not foreseeable harm.
Harvey v o’dell
Stopping for lunch is reasonably in the course of employment.
