Standard is of: The Reasonably Competent Employer

Latimer v AEC - flooded factory, the reasonable employer will take risks - they are not perfect - no breach in this case as held to be the reasonable employer

Duty to provide a safe system of work including:

• hardest to define
  EXAMPLES:
• Speed v Thomas Swift safe systems include: physical layout, sequence in which the work is carried out, provisions of warnings and instructions - cargo removers from ships
• General Cleaning v Christmas - not provided with window cleaning instructions
  McDermide v Nash: Danish Captain spoke no English: system of banging when the ships ropes untied - Danish Captain left - C injured
  
  
  

Failures in relation to Safety Equipment:
Clifford v Charles: contracted dermatitis - cream not readily available - although contributory negligence as should have asked for it
Woods v Durable - same facts although employees supplied with the cream and told hot to use it
Qualcast v Haynes: boots available for hire when working with molten metal - experienced employee chose not to use - safe
Bux v Slough: molten metal - googles should be worn, provided but employees didn't wear - unsafe - employers should have done more - widely known

Failure to Provide Competent Fellow Employees:

• employer has duty to select and employ competent staff
• Action against incompetant employees usually taken under VL
  BUT
• Employers have this primary duty and must remember this is a possible claim
  
  

Black v Fife Coal LTD If an incompetent person is employed or required to do a job that they are not capable of doing then there will be a breach of the employer’s duty

Practical Jokes

• An employer who knows or who ought to know of an employee’s habit of playing practical jokes could be in breach
  Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Company - Habitual practical joke - should know - employer in breach - should have sorted it
  Smith v Crossley Bros. - One-off event, employer not to know - no duty (but VL)
  
  

Sexual Harrassment & Bullying:
Harrison v Lawrence Murphy & Co, The Chartered Secretary: Woman harrassed for months by line manager - employers aware but failed to act - liable for £50k

Factual Causation:

• Some issues around safety equipment - but for the employers breach in not supplying safety equipment, would the claimant have suffered the loss?
• McWilliams v Sir William Arrol - evidence to suggest that even if supplied wouldn't have worn it anyway
• Qualcasy v Haynes: returned to work and sitll didn't wear the boots - evidence that FC would not be satisfied

Legal Causation:

• NAI very difficult to prove as duty to employees is non-delegable, very difficult to break chain

Remoteness
Use Wagon Mound I

• Psychiatric Harm:
• Walker v Northumberland CC - mental health issues due to stress of the job - suffered breakdown, highly likely would have another, employer should have put in measures to reduce stress
• Barber v Somerset - Teacher suffered breakdown from stress - reasonably foreseeable he would suffer another

• Harrison v Lawrence Murphy: Sexual harrassment - suffered mentalhealth issues as a result employers knew

  
  

• RSI not a recognised loss - Mughal v Reuters however in Pickford v ICI recognised but the claim failed