Unit 4.1- Employer Liability CL Flashcards
What are the three conditions set out by Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd?
To provide competent staff
To provide safe system of work
To provide adequate materials and plant
What is laid out in Wilsons Clyde & Co Ltd?
An employer’s non-delegable duties to their employee
What does Latimer AEC say?
An employer has a responsibility to provide a safe place of work
What does Walker v Northumberland County Council say?
A safe place of work includes provisions against stress
What does Hatton v Sutherland say?
The guidelines for dealing with claims of stress as a result of employment.
A duty arises when injury to health through stress at work was reasonably foreseeable:
- Consider the nature and extent of work (obviously too demanding, lots of sickness in relevant department)
- Consider signs from employee himself (generally entitled to presume employee up to the normal pressures of the job)
Authority for ‘a safe place of work includes provisions against stress’?
Walker v Northumberland County Council
What happened in Melville v Home Office?
Claimant worked as health care officer at prison defendant operated. Retrieved bodies of prisoners who had committed suicide 8 times and after final time developed stress related illness.
Though arose from traumatic episodes rather than day to day work, PH foreseeable and gave rise to DoC under Hatton approach
How does Melville v Home Office and White v CC of South Yorkshire Police compare?
White- officers witnessed traumatic episodes not able to claim as couldn’t she relationship of proximity with persons they witnessed and therefore not owed duty as secondary victims under Alcock
Melville- retrieving suicide bodies 8 times over 17year period gave rise to reasonable duty of care under Hatton approach.
How will an employer be in breach of his duty of care?
By failing to meet standard of care to be expected of a reasonable employer in his position.
Due to duties being non-delegable, duty is personal, owed to each individual employee
What does Paris v Stepney say?
If there is an increased risk of a serious type of harm, action must be taken to mitigate
Here, council required to take extra care as they knew he only had one sound eye so should have been given goggles for course of usual work (whilst other garage workers given goggles only for special jobs)
What is the position re causation?
Issues of remoteness, NAI and causation must be considered
Defences?
Contributory Negligence- doesn’t usually stand for employees, Caswell v Powell Duffyn shows sympathy towards employee engaged in repetitive/ noisy work.
- Courts slower to find against the above than office workers
Consent- doesn’t really work, as they are being paid a wage and working under employers’ instruction can they ‘freely’ consent? (Smith v Barker)
