Negligence: Employer's Liability Flashcards
What are the four key duties employers owe to employees under common law, and how are they derived from Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1937] and Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953]?
The four duties are:
1. Competent Staff: Ensuring that employees are not exposed to risks due to unqualified, untrained, or negligent coworkers.
- Adequate Material: Providing safe and functional equipment necessary for the job, regularly maintained and inspected.
- Proper System of Work: Developing safe work processes, ensuring training, supervision, and compliance with safety standards.
- Safe Workplace: Taking reasonable steps to maintain a safe physical environment for employees.
Origins:
* Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English (1937): Introduced the first three duties as personal and non-delegable.
- Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953): Added the duty to ensure a safe workplace.
Why is the employer’s duty of care non-delegable, and what does this mean in practice? Provide examples.
The duty is non-delegable because it is a personal obligation tied to the employer-employee relationship, based on trust and confidence. Employers cannot escape liability by delegating tasks to contractors or employees.
Examples in Practice:
1. Fiona’s Case: Fiona was injured when a negligently serviced machine exploded. Despite delegating servicing to a contractor, the employer was liable because the duty to provide safe equipment is non-delegable.
- Robert’s Case: Robert was injured by a third-party lorry driver outside the factory. Here, the employer was not liable because the injury occurred outside the employer’s scope of duties and was not caused by delegation.
What does the duty to provide competent staff entail, and how was it applied in Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd [1957]?
The duty requires employers to protect employees from harm caused by incompetent or dangerous colleagues.
- Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd (1957):
- An employee known for dangerous horseplay caused an injury. The employer was aware of his behavior over four years but failed to take appropriate action. Liability arose because the risk was foreseeable.
Practical Steps:
* Vet and select employees carefully during hiring.
* Provide sufficient training to ensure competence.
* Supervise and monitor employee conduct.
* Dismiss employees who pose persistent risks despite interventions.
Important Note: Liability arises only when the employer knows or ought to know about the risk posed by an employee, as confirmed in Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2002].
Explain the Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 and its significance for injured employees. What must employees prove under this Act?
This Act allows employees to sue employers directly for injuries caused by defective equipment without needing to sue the manufacturer or supplier.
Key Provisions:
* Section 1(1): Deems injuries caused by defective equipment attributable to employer negligence.
What Employees Must Prove:
1. Third-party fault: Negligence by the equipment’s manufacturer, supplier, or another third party.
- Causation: The defect caused the employee’s injury.
Example:
If a factory machine malfunctions due to a manufacturing defect, injuring an operator, the employer can be held liable under the Act, even though the fault originated with the manufacturer.
What does the duty to provide a safe system of work entail? How was this duty interpreted in Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995]?
The duty requires employers to ensure that work processes and conditions are designed to protect employees from foreseeable risks, including physical harm and stress.
- Develop a safe work process, including physical layout, instructions, and safety equipment.
- Train employees on safe practices and supervise compliance.
- Continuously assess and address risks in the working environment.
Key Case:
* Walker v Northumberland County Council (1995):
* A social worker suffered a second breakdown after his employer failed to address work-related stress following his first breakdown. The court held the employer liable because the harm was foreseeable after the initial incident.
Steps Employers Should Take:
* Train and supervise employees regularly.
* Monitor adherence to safe practices.
* Address employee complaints and provide necessary support.
How does the duty to provide a safe workplace under common law differ from the duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957? Provide a key case to illustrate the difference.
- Common Law Duty:
* Non-delegable; applies wherever employees work. - Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957:
* Delegable; applies only to premises controlled by the employer.
Key Case:
* General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas (1953):
* The employer was liable for failing to assess external premises where employees worked and for not providing a safe system of work despite not owning the premises.
What are the Hatton Guidelines for determining when an employer owes a duty of care for work-related stress? Apply these guidelines to an example.
Hatton Guidelines:
1. Foreseeability: Was harm from stress reasonably foreseeable?
* Based on workload (e.g., excessive demands, high absenteeism).
* Observable signs from employees (e.g., complaints or prior incidents).
2. Assumptions: Employers can assume employees are capable of handling normal job pressures unless warned otherwise.
Application (Bilal’s Case):
Bilal, a social worker, suffered a second breakdown after the employer failed to fulfill promises of support following his first stress-related absence. The foreseeability of further harm created a duty of care, and the employer’s inaction resulted in liability.
How do courts determine whether an employer breached their duty of care? What factors are considered, and how was this applied in Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951]?
Factors Considered:
1. Magnitude of Risk: How foreseeable and severe is the risk?
2. Practicality of Precautions: Were reasonable measures to prevent harm feasible?
Key Case:
* Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951):
* The employer was liable for failing to provide safety goggles to a worker with one functioning eye. The risk of total blindness made extra precautions reasonable and necessary.
