Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Employers' Liability (Other steps (Causation (Factual causation -…

- - - - Loss
        
        Which losses can be claimed?
        
        Traditionally was for personal injury
        
        More recently the courts have extended the duty to...
        
        Psychiatric illness (e.g. work related stress)
        
        Sexual harassment
        
        Bullying
        
        Need to consider remoteness
      - Duty
      - Breach - this needs the most detail
      - Causation
      - Remoteness
      - Defences
- - - - 1) A safe place of work
      - 2) A safe system of work
      - 3) Competent fellow employees
      - Duty is non-delegable - McDermid v Nash Dredging (1987)
      - These elements are used to show breach - don't need to have breached all
- - - - Guidelines only - not a test - Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning (1958)
      - Safe place of work
        
        Generally quite straightforward - some overlap with safe system requirement
        
        Applies not just to building but also equipment, materials etc. - guidance found in employment statutes and regulations
        
        Examples
        
        Latimer v AEC
        
        Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning - nature of business meant employees worked offsite regularly - employers obviously didn't visit each site, but gave advice that if employee didn't think it was safe, shouldn't risk it - claimant was a skilled employee who should have known better - employer held to have given the level of guidance expected
      - Safe system of work
        
        This branch is used most in claims and is the hardest to define
        
        Examples - only provide guidance, not precedents
        
        Speed v Thomas Swift (1943) - claimant was working on barge with section of railing missing - got caught on a hook and injured - court held should have adapted the system and given employees instructions that took account of changes - safe system held to include...
        
        Physical layout
        
        The sequence in which the work is to be carried out
        
        The provision of warnings and instructions
        
        Facts of case give indication of what this means -
        
        General Cleaning v Christmas (1953) - inexperienced employee given no safety instructions or equipment - found breach as employer had not done enough to meet standard
        
        McDermid v Nash (1987) - claimant was working on barge - captain couldn't speak English so implemented system where employee would tap twice when he had finished pulling the ropes on and it was safe to set sale - didn't work and claimant was injured - even though the captain was an independent contractor, claim succeeded against the employer because duty of care non-delegable
        
        Failure in relation to safety equipment
        
        Clifford v Charles (1951) - glue used at work shown to cause dermatitis - supposed to use barrier cream which was only available in a locked cupboard - also no water provided to wash - found employer did not take sufficient steps, but employer also found to contribute by not taking effort to use cream
        
        Woods v Durable (1953) - glue at work shown to cause dermatitis - cream provided but wasn't actively encouraged and no instructions given - no breach found - employers not required to stand over their employees and watch
        
        Qualcast v Haynes (1959) - splashed with molten metal - wasn't wearing protective boots - available to borrow but had to pay - no breach found - experienced employee - would probably be decided differently now as this was pre-Health and Safety at Work Act - again stressed this was not an absolute rule
        
        Bux v Slough (1974) - reflects change in attitude - splashed with molten metal - wasn't wearing goggles - didn't wear because they misted up and made it hard to work - found employer should have done more due to nature and extent of the risk, but employer also found to contribute
      - Failure to provide competent employees
        
        Must be evidence of fault here - if employer is not found at fault then the only option is to sue the employer vicariously in place of the incompetent employee
        
        Black v Fife Coal (1912) - employer found at fault for hiring incompetent manager at mine - didn't understand dangers of carbon monoxide
        
        Practical jokes
        
        Smith v Crossley (1951) - internal injuries from practical joke with compressed air tube - claim failed as had been no previous indication that employee not competent
        
        Hudson v Ridge (1957) - employee who caused injury had been warned several times for playing practical jokes over the course of four years - breach found
- - - - Qualcast v Haynes (1959) - court said even if breach had been established it would still have failed on factual causation - by the time case came to court, claimant was still working there and still not wearing boots
      - McWilliams v Sir William Arrol (1962) - similar to Qualcast - failed on factual causation because found would not have worn harness anyway
  - - - Losses recognised include psychiatric damage #
        
        Walker v Northumberland CC (1995) - social worker had nervous breakdown - when they came back to work employer tried to make reasonable adjustments but still went on to have another - found to be reasonable foreseeable
        
        Barber v Somerset (2004) - teacher given more hours even though employer knew they were depressed - should have done more to reduce workload because of it - employers not always responsible for stress, but if they know they need to take steps to deal with it
        
        Harrison v Lawrence Murphy (1998) - sexual harassment case - employer knew about it
      - Repetitive strain injury - courts reluctant to allow
        
        Mughal v Reuters (1993) - condition not scientifically recognised at that time
        
        Pickford v ICI (1998) - recognised
  - - - Bowater v Rowley Regis (1944) -
      - ICI v Shatwell (1965) - knew the risks and did it anyway
      - Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority (1992) - junior doctor - contract required them to work 40 hours per week plus 48 hours on call - employer said consented but courts allowed it to be heard
    - - Bux v Slough (1974) - 40%
      - Clifford v Charles (1951) - 50%
      - Fraser v Winchester HA (2000) - asked to take mentally ill person on camping trip - had never been camping before - lit candles in tent and then changed gas in stove - 33%
      - Sherlock v Chester City Council (2004) - experienced joiner - saw not properly set up but could have adjusted - 60%