Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
EMPLOYERS PRIMARY LIABILITY (Standard of care (A reasonable employer…
EMPLOYERS PRIMARY LIABILITY
Standard of care
A reasonable employer
Latimer v AEC
Employer took all reasonable precautions including sawdust to soak up the wet floor - closing the factory would have been unreasonable
Fallen below?
Employee?
Ready-mixed Concrete
Type of remuneration (paid through invoices or a salary?)
Control (the more control over C, the more likely to be an employee)
Other contractual features
Duty
Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English
'The provision of a
competent staff of men
,
adequate material
and a
proper system and effective supervision
'
(this duty is owed only to employees)
Provide reasonably competent fellow employees
Black v Fife Coal
Duty to employ competent people to deal with the dangers in the area
Waters v Commissioner of Police
Employer aware of the harassment and failed to stop it therefore in breach of their duty
Provide safe premises, plant, equipment and materials
Yorkshire Traction
Employer was not liable as risk was so low
Latimer v AEC
Employer took all reasonable precaution to ensure premises were safe without taking unreasonable measures of closing the factory
Bux v Slough Metals
Employer aware of fault in equipment however did not take steps to solve the problem therefore did not provide reasonable safety equipment
Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning
Unreasonable for employer to check the safety of all third party premises
Provide a safe system of work
Speed v Thomas Swift
Need to adapt in response to changed circumstances
Woods v Durable Suites
Does not necessarily involve standing over employees
General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas
Need to take into account foreseeable risks
McDermid v Nash
Safe system needs to be implemented
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Need to take into account personal characteristics of employees
Pape v CCC
Should include adequate, specific warnings
McDermid v Nash
This duty is personal and non-delegable
Causation
Factual
Cork v Kirby
But for
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol
But for a harness being provided, C would not have worn it therefore would have died anyway - but for failed
Legal
Refusal to use safety equipment could be a novus actus interveniens
Remoteness (usual)
Defences
Volenti non fit injuria
Smith v Charles Baker
C did not consent to lack of care
Difficult to establish as risk is not usually taken voluntarily
Contributory negligence
Bux v Slough Metals
Damages reduced by 20% due to contrib neg