Employers liability

Question 1

What is the menmonic for the structure?

Answer 1

I -> Introduction
Porked -> Parties/damage/claim type
Danish -> Direct claims
Elfin -> Employers claims (Primary)
Vagina -> Vicarious claims (Secondary)

Question 2

Employers are obligated to have insurance by what act?

Answer 2

S1 Employers liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969

Question 3

Wilsons and Clyde v English

Answer 3

• Provide reasonably competent employees
• Duty to provide safe premises, plant, equipment and materials
• A duty to provide a safe system of work

Question 4

McDermid v Nash

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Black v Fife Coal Co.

Answer 5

Hired incompetent employee, was not aware of risks of carbon monoxide poisoning

Question 6

Hudson v Rdige

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

Smith v Crossley Bros

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Waters v Commissioner of POlice

Answer 8

Employer liable for tort if should have reasonably known of bullying/harrasment

Question 9

Smith v Charles Baker

Answer 9

• Duty to provide safe equipment

- Volenti not accepted by courts in relation to employment as judged to be a restriction of freedom

Question 10

Qualcast v Haynes

Answer 10

Old interpretation of duty to provide safe equipment. Only had to be provided, no duty to implement

Question 11

Bux v Slough Metals

Answer 11

• 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

Question 12

Employers Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969

Answer 12

Employer liable for defective equipment

Question 13

Coltman v Bibby Tanker

Answer 13

Wide interpretation of what is equipment

Question 14

Area largely governed by statute now;

Answer 14

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations
HASAWA 1974
However these acts are criminal largely

Question 15

Employee has a duty to act responsibly

Answer 15

• 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

Question 16

Latimer v AEC

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning

Answer 17

Duty to provide safe premises extends to 3rd party premises

Question 18

Pape v Cumbria County Council

Answer 18

The greater the risk of the employment the greater the duty to warn employees of risk and implement appropriate procedures

Question 19

Paris v Stepney

Answer 19

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

Question 20

General Cleaning v Chritmas

Answer 20

Duty to provide appropriate training for task required. Cleaning sash window

Question 21

Speed v Thomas Swift

Answer 21

Duty to update training

Question 22

Clifford v Charles Cullen

Answer 22

Foreman discouraged use of safety equipment. Therefore employer was liable

Question 23

Woods v Durable Suites

Answer 23

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

Question 24

McDermid v Nash

Answer 24

Safety systems must be devised and implemented

Question 25

Fraser v Winchester

Answer 25

If you asked to do something in the course of employment then you must be trained to do it

Question 26

McWilliams v Sir William Arrol

Answer 26

An employee can be an NAI if they choose not to use the safety equipment

Question 27

Rahman v Arearose Ltd

Answer 27

Employee assaulted in Burgerking. Harm foreseeable so not too remote

Question 28

Yorkshire v Walter Selby

Answer 28

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.

Question 29

Pape v Cumbria

Answer 29

Duty to warn employees of risk of not using safety equipment.

Question 30

Alexander v midland bank

Answer 30

Safe system of work not provided where too high rate of work demanded causing injury.

Question 31

Walker v Northumberland

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

Cook v Bradford NHS

Answer 32

Duty to protect employee from attacks by 3rd parties. Defendant left in presence of psychiatric patient. Breach of safe system.

Question 33

Davie v new Merton

Answer 33

Employer not liable for tort where harm occurred from fault in tool that was not apparent on reasonable inspection. Not foreseeable harm.

Question 34

Harvey v o’dell

Answer 34

Stopping for lunch is reasonably in the course of employment.