Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another: QBD 15 Feb 2005

The claimant had been exposed to asbestos whilst employed by the defendant and sought damages for the pleural plaques which had developed as a consequence. The defendant replied that such plaques and pleural thickening were not a sufficient injury to found a claim.
Held: The defendants were liable. The defendants focussed wrongly on the pleural plaques: ‘I start by rejecting any notion that pleural plaques per se can found a cause of action. I am not satisfied that for forensic purposes they can be categorised as a ‘disease’ nor as an ‘impairment of physical condition’. This whole forensic exercise arises because for practical purposes there is no disease, nor is there any impairment of physical condition.’ As to the associated anxiety: ‘I am satisfied that when, as in the instant cases, anxiety is engendered by tortiously inflicted physiological damage it can properly contribute to ‘damage’ or ‘injury’ so as to complete the foundation of a cause of action. It becomes that which is routinely encompassed in ‘pain and suffering’ or ‘loss of amenity’. I take it to be beyond dispute that a continuing anxiety engendered by a tortiously inflicted external scar can contribute to the compensatable injury and I see no logical difference between that situation and such that arises in the instant situation.’ and ‘ . . , I cannot myself regard as minimal the presence of asbestos within the body that is permanent, raising a possibility (albeit no higher than that) of the future onset of asbestosis or the even more daunting mesothelioma,’

Judges:

Holland J Mrs

Citations:

Unreported, 15 February 2005, B3/2005/0528, MA324838, 4NE05336, NE301177, CH301273, HQ309X00927, HQ4MY00912

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006
Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim.
Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . .
At first instanceJohnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.238192

Cameron and others v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: QBD 18 May 2006

The claimant sought damages from the defendant after the death of her father in the Potters Bar rail crash. The defendant applied for summary judgment saying that English law did not recognise a claim by a family member of a deceased save through the claim of the estate itself. The claimant said that this would deny her human rights, and sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to s1A of the 1976 Act.
Held: ‘It is within the reasonable margin of appreciation of the State to limit those who are entitled to claim compensation to those who are financially dependent on the deceased. Who otherwise should say where the line should be drawn between those who may claim from those who may not? ‘ The claimants had also lost any possibility of a claim through limitation.

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2006, [2006] EWHC 1133 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000, Human Rights Act 1998, Fatal Accidents Act 1976 1A, Railways Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedTakoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
CitedMiddleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
CitedFoster and others v British Gas plc ECJ 12-Jul-1990
The defendants (BGC) were nationalised suppliers of gas. BGC was by statute a body with a legal persona operating under the supervision of the authorities. Its members were appointed by the Secretary of State, who also determined their remuneration. . .
CitedParochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Human Rights, Personal Injury, Transport, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.242210

David v Honeywell Normalair-Garrett Ltd: QBD 2 Mar 2006

The claimant sought damages for personal injuries arising from exposure to depleted uranium whilst working for the defendant. An earlier claim had been compromised. The defendant denied liabilty and relied also on the compromise.
Held: The evidence from expert witnesses was conflicting, but there was no sufficient evidence of exposure of the claimant to depleted uranium, or that his condition was caused by exosure to depleted uranium at his place of work. Furthermore the compromise agreement had been effective to defeat this claim.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 351 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Management of Health Safety at Work Regulations 1992, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985, Factories Act 1961

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJohnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.238932

Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc: HL 30 Jun 1998

In the absence of conclusive evidence establishing a cause of a condition, the judge was free to find that causation was not established and that the claim was lost. There was no necessary obligation on an employer to have procedures which might create claims.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

Times 30-Jun-1998, [1998] UKHL 25, [1998] 3 All ER 462, [1998] 1 WLR 1189

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Appeal fromAnne Margaret Pickford v ICI CA 2-Aug-1996
A failure to provide guidance to employee resulting in repetitive strain injury. A prescribed disease PDA4 of RSI type was found. The issue was causation not forseeability. . .
See AlsoICI Plc v Colmer (Inspector of Taxes) HL 15-Mar-1996
A ‘Holding company’ under the Act meant a company resident in the UK; A reference was made of the issues to the European Court. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toAnne Margaret Pickford v ICI CA 2-Aug-1996
A failure to provide guidance to employee resulting in repetitive strain injury. A prescribed disease PDA4 of RSI type was found. The issue was causation not forseeability. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84731

Makepeace v Evans Brothers (Reading) (A Firm) and Another: CA 23 May 2000

Scaffolding is an ordinary piece of equipment on a building site. As a general rule an occupier of a building did not owe a duty of care for the safety of employees of its independent contractor. However, there may be occasions when such a duty of care might arise. It would be an unwarranted extension of the nursemaid school of negligence to hold a main contractor liable to the employee of a sub-contractor for failing to verify his training in the use of scaffolding on a building site. The main contractor’s duties arose in favour of visitors to the site in respect of the condition of the site itself. Such judgements are not always easy or clear, since building sites and scaffolding are inherently dangerous places. Accordingly a main contractor was not liable in negligence nor under the Act where one contractor was injured as a result of using scaffolding erected by another sub-contractor. The person who erected the scaffolding was liable, but not in this case the site’s main contractor.

Judges:

Mantell LJ

Citations:

Times 13-Jun-2000, Gazette 08-Jun-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 171, [2000] BLR 287

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEH Humphries (Norton) Ltd. Thistle Hotels Plc v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd CA 10-Nov-2006
The sub-contractor’s workman fell through a skylight and died. His employers having settled, obtained contribution orders from the main contractors and building owners who each now appealed.
Held: Whether main contractors were also liable to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83341

Kinnear and Others v Falconfilms Nv and Others: QBD 27 Jan 1994

The actor Roy Kinnear died on being thrown from a horse while making a film in Spain. His widow sought damages from the fim company who in turn sought to issue a third party notice against those involved in Spain.
Held: A third party claim with a sufficient nexus may bring a main claim with Brussels Convention.

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

Times 01-Mar-1994, [1994] EWHC QB 1, [1996] 1 WLR 920, [1994] 3 All ER 42, [1994] ILPr 731

Links:

Bailii

International, Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82801

Harris v Evans and Health and Safety Executive: CA 24 Apr 1998

A Health and Safety inspector, making negligently excessive requirements of operators of a bungee jump, was not liable since he operated under a statutory duty and had no duty of care to the operators. His duty was owed to members of the public.

Judges:

Sir Richard Scott VC, Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Schiemann

Citations:

Times 05-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 709, [1998] 1 WLR 1285, [1998] 3 All ER 523

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTrent Strategic Health Authority v Jain and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants’ nursing home business had been effectively destroyed by the actions of the Authority which had applied to revoke their licence without them being given notice and opportunity to reply. They succeeded on appeal, but the business was by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Health and Safety

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81253

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Malrod Insulations Ltd: QBD 6 Jan 1993

The company had contracted to remove asbestos. Before work was to start, the inspector found defective equipment. The prosecutor appealed the acquittal on appeal to the Crown Court.
Held: An employer’s duty of care extends to all employees, and not just those working on a particular plant and even when the plant was not in use. The duty under s2 applied to all employees ‘at work’ and was not restricted to those intended to use the plant in question. The duty to provide safe equipment applied even though it had not been used.

Citations:

Times 04-Aug-1994, Gazette 06-Jan-1993, [1993] ICR 358, (1993) 137 SJLB 13, [1993] IRLR 274, [1993] COD 391

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2(1) 2(a)

Employment, Health and Safety

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78474

Edwards v National Coal Board: CA 1949

A regulation encompassed a requirement to take specified action, so far as it is reasonably practicable, in order to prevent danger. Asquith LJ discussed the term: ”Reasonably practicable’ . . seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner, in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other; and that if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge the onus on them.’

Judges:

Asquith LJ

Citations:

[1949] 1 KB 704

Cited by:

CitedAustin Rover Group Ltd v Her Majesty’s Inspector of Factories HL 1990
The relevant factors in the phrase the words ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ are the foreseeable risk of injury and the cost of the preventive measures. ‘Sections 2 and 3 impose duties in relation to safety on a single person, whether an . .
CitedMann v Northern Electric Distribution Ltd CA 26-Feb-2010
Climb over high fence was unforeseeable
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages after suffering very severe injury when climbing onto an electricity substation. He said that the defendant had not satisfied its statutory obligation to fence off the substation. The . .
CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group and Others CA 5-Jun-2009
The court considered a request that one of the three judges (Sedley LJ) recuse himself on the grounds of apparent bias. It was a case claiming damages for personal injury in the form of hearing losses incurred at work. Sedley LJ was Hon President of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.401956

Joyce Andrews v Initial Cleaning Services Limited McDougalls Catering Foods Limited: CA 14 Jul 1999

Employees of one company were injured whilst working cleaning the premises of another. The issue was as to apportionment of the personal injury damages between the two companies.
Held: There was an error of approach by the Recorder entitling the Court of Appeal to interfere with the apportionment. The defendant employer’s duty was not delegable, and their substantial presence in the premises placed a duty upon them to check the safety of the premises and was a very significant factor in any proper apportionment. Where employees of a company were working at a remote site, the employers retained the primary responsibility for ensuring that a safe place of work and method of work were provided, even when this extended to the condition of fittings at the remote premises. In this case the employers had 75 per cent and the owners of the building 25 per cent responsibility.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Laws

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1999, Times 18-Aug-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1831

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBritish Fame v MacGregor (‘The MacGregor’) HL 1947
Two ships had collided. One party sought to appeal the apportionment of damages.
Held: The House considered the reluctance of an appellate court to interefere with an apportionment of damages applied by the court at first instance: ‘It seems . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77796

Anne Margaret Pickford v ICI: CA 2 Aug 1996

A failure to provide guidance to employee resulting in repetitive strain injury. A prescribed disease PDA4 of RSI type was found. The issue was causation not forseeability.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Aug-1996, Gazette 23-Oct-1996

Citing:

Appealed toPickford v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc HL 30-Jun-1998
In the absence of conclusive evidence establishing a cause of a condition, the judge was free to find that causation was not established and that the claim was lost. There was no necessary obligation on an employer to have procedures which might . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromPickford v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc HL 30-Jun-1998
In the absence of conclusive evidence establishing a cause of a condition, the judge was free to find that causation was not established and that the claim was lost. There was no necessary obligation on an employer to have procedures which might . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77802

Mitchell v North British Rubber Co Ltd: 1945

The court considered the meaning of the term ‘dangerous’ in the Act. Lord Justice Clerk Cooper: ‘The question is not whether the occupiers of the factory knew that it was dangerous; nor whether a factory inspector had so reported; nor whether previous accidents had occurred; nor whether the victims of these accidents had, or had not, been contributorily negligent. The test is objective and impersonal. Is the part such in its character, and so circumstanced in its position, exposure, method of operation and the like, that in the ordinary course of human affairs danger may reasonably be anticipated from its use unfenced, not only to the prudent, alert and skilled operative intent on his task, but also to the careless or inattentive worker whose inadvertent or indolent conduct may expose him to risk of injury or death from the unguarded part?’

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk Cooper

Citations:

1945 JC 69

Statutes:

Factories Act 1937 14(1)

Cited by:

CitedRobb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Scotland

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.247756

McArdle v Andmac Roofing Co and Others: 1967

Non-employers can owe a duty of care analogous to those owed by an employer particularly where the non-employer is engaged in operations which may affect the sub-contractor or his employee

Citations:

[1967] 1 All ER 583, [1967] 1 WLR 356, 111 Sol Jo 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEH Humphries (Norton) Ltd. Thistle Hotels Plc v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd CA 10-Nov-2006
The sub-contractor’s workman fell through a skylight and died. His employers having settled, obtained contribution orders from the main contractors and building owners who each now appealed.
Held: Whether main contractors were also liable to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Negligence

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.246407

MacMillan v Wimpey Offshore Engineers and Constructors Ltd: 1991

Citations:

1991 SLT 515

Statutes:

Offshore Installations (Operational Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations 1976

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment
The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Health and Safety

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243289

Davies v Health and Safety Executive: CA 18 Dec 2002

The defendant complained that section 40 imposed a burden of proof upon him which infringed the presumption of innocence and his right to a fair trial. The trial judge held that the burden imposed a legal burden rather than an evidential one.
Held: The Act could not be read down so as to impose only an evidential burden on the defendant. The court applied the three stage test from Kebilene, asking what the prosecution had first to prove to transfer the burden, then what are the characteristics of what the defendant had to prove, and what was the threat to society addressed by the transfer of the burden. Here, there was no threat of imprisonment, and enforcement would be impossible without such a transfer.

Judges:

Tuckey LJ, Douglas Brown, Gordon JJ

Citations:

Times 27-Dec-2002

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 33(1)(a) 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Human Rights

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.178604

Neill v Greater Glasgow Health Board: 1994

Citations:

[1996] SC 185, [1994] SLR 673

Cited by:

CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Health and Safety

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.440438

Sheppey v Matthew T Shaw and Co Ltd: 1952

Citations:

[1952] 1 TLR 1272

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.440382

Clifford v Charles H Challen and Son Ltd: CA 1951

Judges:

Denning LJ

Citations:

[1951] 1 KB 495

Cited by:

CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.440378

Ebbs v James Whitson and Co Ltd: CA 1952

Judges:

Hodson LJ

Citations:

[1952] 2 QB 877

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.440379

Duncanson v South Ayrshire Council: 1999

A steel storage cabinet was held to be work equipment.

Citations:

1999 SLT 519

Cited by:

CitedSpencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others HL 2-Jul-2008
The deceased worked for the defendants on an oil rig. He was injured by a door closer he was attempting to repair. The defendants denied that the mechanism was equipment within the Regulations.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The door closer was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Health and Safety

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270711

Connor v Secretary of State for Scotland: OHCS 22 Mar 2000

A prison governor sent out a warder with two violent prisoners where it was policy not to bring such prisoners together. The warder suffered injury as a result. There could be no breach of statutory duty where the governor exercised a discretion given to him as to how a statutory function was to be fulfilled. Nevertheless he might be liable in negligence.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2000

Employment, Health and Safety, Negligence

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79455

Lyon v Don Brothers, Buist and Co: 1944

Lord Justice General Normand said that the circumstances which can reasonably be expected by an employer in the context of health and safety ‘include a great deal more than the staid, prudent, well-regulated conduct of men diligently attentive to their work’.

Judges:

Lord Justice General Normand

Citations:

1944 JC 1

Cited by:

CitedRobb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Scotland

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.247760

Tasci v Pekalp of London Ltd: CA 17 Jan 2001

The duty of an employer properly to train his employees in the use of wood-working machinery, as set out in the Regulations, extended beyond that needed to give a comprehensive explanation in ordinary language. Particularly in the case where an employee might not have a good command of English, or where there was reason to suspect that he might exaggerate his understanding, the employer should verify the extent of understanding achieved.

Citations:

Times 17-Jan-2001

Statutes:

Woodworking Machines Regulations 1974 (1974 no 903)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Personal Injury, Employment

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89725

Hartley v Mayoh and Co: 1954

The expression ‘persons employed’ does not extend to a fireman who enters a factory in order to put a fire out, though the occupier may well have a duty to warn firemen of an unexpected danger or trap of which he knows or ought to know.

Citations:

[1954] 1 QB 383

Cited by:

CitedMcDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc SC 22-Oct-2014
Contact visiting plants supported asbestos claim
The deceased had worked as a lorry driver regularly collecting pulverized fuel ash from a power station. On his visits he was at areas with asbestos dust. He came to die from mesothelioma. His widow now pursued his claim that the respondent had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Land

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.538252

Gregson v Hick Hargreaves and Co Ltd: CA 1955

The plaintiff suffered illness having inhaled noxious particles of silica which formed part of a substantial quantity of dust given off by a process. The presence of the silica, and its harmfulness, had not been known at the time.
Held: The defendants were liable.
Singleton LJ said: ‘No one could successfully contend . . that if there was given off a considerable quantity of dust at one end of this 100 yards long shop, everyone down to the other end of the shop should be provided with a mask’ and
‘On the latter part of section 47(1) on which [counsel for the plaintiff] relies, he is entitled to say there was given off a substantial quantity of dust, and thus the employers were under a duty to take all practicable measures to protect the plaintiff and others employed against inhalation of the dust.’
Jenkins LJ observed that the duty of employers was to take all practicable measures to protect their workpeople from the inhalation of dust, and their duty to do that did not depend on the question whether the dust was known or believed to be noxious or not.

Judges:

Singleton, Jenkins LJJ

Citations:

[1955] 1 WLR 1252

Statutes:

Factories Act 1937 47(1)

Cited by:

CitedMcDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc SC 22-Oct-2014
Contact visiting plants supported asbestos claim
The deceased had worked as a lorry driver regularly collecting pulverized fuel ash from a power station. On his visits he was at areas with asbestos dust. He came to die from mesothelioma. His widow now pursued his claim that the respondent had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.538250

Uddin v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd: CA 1965

Mr Uddin, the plaintiff was a machinery attendant in a cement grading and packing factory. He wanted to catch a pigeon sitting behind the revolving shaft of a machine. He climbed a vertical steel ladder to a platform where he knew he was not authorised to be. He stood on the top of a machine with a horizontal revolving shaft with projecting studs on it. The shaft was a dangerous part of machinery and was not fenced in contravention of the Factories Act, 1937. While the plaintiff was leaning over the shaft in an attempt to catch the pigeon, his clothing was caught in the revolving shaft and he was injured.
Held: Section 14 of the 1937 Act applied, though the plaintiff was 80% responsible for his injury. Lord Pearce said, ‘there is . . nothing to justify the gloss that an employed person is to be protected only so long as he is acting within the scope of his employment.’ The duty extended to an employee doing for his own benefit something he was not authorised to do at a place he should not have been.

Judges:

Pearce LJ

Citations:

[1965] 2 QB 582, [1965] 2 All ER 213, [1965] 2 WLR 1183

Statutes:

Factories Act 1937 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMcDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc SC 22-Oct-2014
Contact visiting plants supported asbestos claim
The deceased had worked as a lorry driver regularly collecting pulverized fuel ash from a power station. On his visits he was at areas with asbestos dust. He came to die from mesothelioma. His widow now pursued his claim that the respondent had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.538247

Brophy v J C Bradfield and Co Ltd: CA 1955

Singleton LJ said as to regard to section 47: ‘That section again deals with work rooms and with processes carried on in the factory. For the reason I have given with regard to section 4(1) I do not think that section 47(1) applies to the facts of this case.’

Judges:

Singleton, Jenkins and Parker LJJ

Citations:

[1955] 1 WLR 1148

Statutes:

Factories Act 1937 47

Cited by:

CitedBanks v Woodhall Duckham and Others CA 30-Nov-1955
The plaintiff had been employed by the first defendant as a pipe fitter at two steel works occupied and operated by predecessors of the second defendant. He had worked two years at each of the sites erecting pipes, breaking into old pipes and . .
CitedMcDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc SC 22-Oct-2014
Contact visiting plants supported asbestos claim
The deceased had worked as a lorry driver regularly collecting pulverized fuel ash from a power station. On his visits he was at areas with asbestos dust. He came to die from mesothelioma. His widow now pursued his claim that the respondent had . .
ExplainedOwen v IMI Yorkshire Copper Tube QBD 15-Jun-1995
Buxton J explained the decision in Brophy, on the basis that when the fumes came from the factory heating supply and not from any part of the manufacturing process it was not a part of the process carried on in the factory.
The protection . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.538243

Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd and Another: QBD 26 Feb 2013

The claimant was seriously injured on a ‘Hello and Fun’ day. He and several others had taken part in a competitive game in the course of which they were allowed to enter a small pool with a one-metre drop into a depth of water of only 18 inches head first. The court now heard a retrial.
Held: The defendant was liable. There had been a reasonably foreseeable risk of serious injury.

Judges:

Foskett J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 353 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

First TrialUren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd and Others QBD 22-Jan-2010
The claimant was injured on a poolside on an ‘It’s a Knock Out’ fun day organised by the defendants. He suggested that the risk assessment was inadequate.
Held: The claim failed. The question for decision is not whether adequate risk . .
At Court of AppealUren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd CA 2-Feb-2011
The claimant suffered injury at a competitive fun day organised by his employers, the RAF at a facility of the respondents. He struck his head diving into a very shallow inflatable pool. He appealed against dismissal of his claim.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

CitedCockbill v Riley QBD 22-Mar-2013
The claimant sufferd catastrophic injury diving into a paddling pool at a party held by the defendant for his daughter to celebrate completing her GCSEs.
Held: The claim failed. ‘It was reasonably foreseeable that someone would lose his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.471202

Davies v de Havilland Aircraft Co Ltd: 1951

Citations:

[1951] 1 KB 50

Cited by:

CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.440368

McCarthy v Coldair Ltd: CA 1951

Judges:

Denning LJ, Hodson LJ

Citations:

[1951] 2 TLR 1226

Cited by:

CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.440373

Robertson v RB Cowe and Co: 1970

A trestle erected on a marine slipway moved causing a workman to fall.
Held: Lord Guthrie concluded ‘from the whole circumstances elicited . . as to the position of the staging, the way in which the pursuer worked, the outward movement of the trestle, and where the pursuer fell’ that ‘on a balance of probabilities . . the erection was insecure and unsafe’. Lord Migdale treated the fact that the trestle fell over as proof that it was not safe, and both he and, with hesitation, Lord President Clyde concluded that the decision in Nimmo meant that breach of section 29(1) was established once it was proved that the trestle was not sufficiently stable to support a workman doing his job there normally.

Judges:

Lord Migdale, Lord Guthrie, Lord President Clyde

Citations:

1970 SLT 122

Cited by:

CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Health and Safety

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.440436

Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd: CA 2 Feb 2011

The claimant suffered injury at a competitive fun day organised by his employers, the RAF at a facility of the respondents. He struck his head diving into a very shallow inflatable pool. He appealed against dismissal of his claim.
Held: The judge had failed properly to explain why he had preferred the evidence of the defendant’s expert, and a retrial was necessary.
An employer’s duty of care may not arise under Health and Safety legislation, but may still arise under the law of negligence. That duty of care includes the making of adequate and suitable risk assessments, which are the same as those owed under the regulations.
Smith LJ stated: ‘It is obvious that the failure to carry out a proper risk assessment can never be the direct cause of an injury.’ But there will, some cases, such as this: ‘in which it can be shown that, on the facts, the failure to carry out a proper risk assessment has been indirectly causative of the injury. Where that is shown, liability will follow. Such a failure can only give rise to liability if a suitable and sufficient assessment would probably have resulted in a precaution being taken which would probably have avoided the injury. A decision of that kind will necessitate hypothetical consideration of what would have happened if there had been a proper assessment.’

Judges:

Smith, Aikens, Pitchford LLJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 66, [2011] ICR D11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Compensation Act 2006 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromUren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd and Others QBD 22-Jan-2010
The claimant was injured on a poolside on an ‘It’s a Knock Out’ fun day organised by the defendants. He suggested that the risk assessment was inadequate.
Held: The claim failed. The question for decision is not whether adequate risk . .
CitedTomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .

Cited by:

CitedReynolds v Strutt and Parker LLP ChD 15-Jul-2011
The defendant had organised a team bonding day, including a cycling event. The claimant employee was severely injured falling from his cycle. He said that the defendant had been engligent in not providing cycling helmets. The circuit hosting company . .
At Court of AppealUren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd and Another QBD 26-Feb-2013
The claimant was seriously injured on a ‘Hello and Fun’ day. He and several others had taken part in a competitive game in the course of which they were allowed to enter a small pool with a one-metre drop into a depth of water of only 18 inches head . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence, Health and Safety

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.428539

Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd and Others: QBD 22 Jan 2010

The claimant was injured on a poolside on an ‘It’s a Knock Out’ fun day organised by the defendants. He suggested that the risk assessment was inadequate.
Held: The claim failed. The question for decision is not whether adequate risk assessments had been undertaken, but whether the defendants took reasonable measures to ensure that the game was safe. The pool was less than 1.5 metres deep, but the claimant had been allowed to enter head first. The risk of serious injury posed by the pool game was very small. The contestants were told to take care on entering the pool. It was obvious that they should not attempt to dive in without sliding over the side. In sliding over the side they would be moving essentially horizontally and the friction would slow the pace of entry. At that point the contestants would be about a metre above the ground and by entering with arms outstretched to the front, they could be expected to be able to control the impact with the bottom of the pool – a lining resting on a grassed playing field. The existence of a small risk did not mean that the defendants were negligent: ‘A balance has to be struck between the level of risk involved and the benefits the activity confers on the participants and thereby on society generally. ‘

Judges:

Field J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 46 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 3 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromUren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd CA 2-Feb-2011
The claimant suffered injury at a competitive fun day organised by his employers, the RAF at a facility of the respondents. He struck his head diving into a very shallow inflatable pool. He appealed against dismissal of his claim.
Held: The . .
First TrialUren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd and Another QBD 26-Feb-2013
The claimant was seriously injured on a ‘Hello and Fun’ day. He and several others had taken part in a competitive game in the course of which they were allowed to enter a small pool with a one-metre drop into a depth of water of only 18 inches head . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence, Health and Safety

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.393388

Plant Construction Plc v Clive Adams Associates and Another: CA 1 Mar 2000

A sub-contractor obliged under contract to carry out works in a certain way and to a specification set down by the main contractor, remained under a duty to warn that employer of any obvious danger. He was subject to the normal standards of behaving with the skill and care of an ordinarily competent contractor whatever was said in the contract about obeying instructions.

Citations:

Times 01-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Construction

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84758

Smith (formerly Westwood) v National Coal Board: HL 1967

Lord Reid said that an employer ‘must always have in mind, not only the careful man, but also the man who is inattentive to such a degree as can normally be expected.’

Judges:

Lord Reid

Citations:

[1967] 1 WLR 871

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRobb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.247759

Armstrong and others v British Coal Corporation (2): CA 31 Jul 1998

The corporation appealed against a decision that it was liable to the plaintiffs (representatives of 25,000 other plaintiffs) for damages for Vibratory White Finger.

Judges:

Simon Brown, Judge, Buxton LJJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1359, [1998] CLY 975

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 19745

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEdwards v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors SC 20-Nov-2019
The claimant sought damages saying that the defendant solicitors had failed to secure the incremental award of compensation under the vibration white finger scheme. The central issue was whether evidence which only became available later, but which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.144838

White v Pressed Steel Fisher: 1980

The case tested whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a complaint under the regulations. The regulations applied the provisions of the section, but the section had been repealed.
Held: The transitional provisions were sufficient to preserve the jurisdiction under the new Act.

Citations:

[1980] IRLR 176

Statutes:

Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (1977 No 500) 4(2) 11(5), Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 128

Cited by:

Re-appliedW A Duthie v Bath and North East Somerset Council EAT 29-Apr-2003
The claimant said he had not been given time off from work to attend relevant health and safety training courses. The company responded that the regulations had been repealed, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Held: Jurisdiction was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Health and Safety

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.182361

Page v Freight Hire (Tank Haulage) Ltd: EAT 1981

The complainant was a female lorry driver, aged 23, employed by a firm specialising in the carriage of chemicals. One chemical was potentially embryotoxic, and the manufacturers warned that special precautions should be taken to avoid women of child-bearing age being exposed to it. The employers therefore refused to allow the complainant to drive lorries carrying the chemical in question. She complained of sex discrimination.
Held: Her appeal failed. The employers had a defence under section 51(1) of the 1975 Act, which excluded liability for an otherwise unlawfully discriminatory act ‘if it was necessary for [the respondent] to do it in order to comply with a requirement . . of an Act passed before this Act’. The employers were obliged to act in the way complained of in order to comply with their duty under section 2(1) of the 1974 Act and could rely on the defence. The Equal Opportunity Commission submitted ‘that the employers had to show ‘that there is no other way of protecting [the] woman . . other than’ by subjecting her to the detriment complained of, and that that must be demonstrated by reference to an absolute standard, irrespective of any limits on the employer’s knowledge or understanding of the safety risk. Slynn J. rejected that submission, holding that it was enough that the employers could show that the act complained of was necessary on the information available to them.

Judges:

Slynn J

Citations:

[1981] ICR 299

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 51(1), Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAmnesty International v Ahmed EAT 13-Aug-2009
amnesty_ahmedEAT2009
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Direct discrimination
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Indirect discrimination
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Protected by s. 41
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
Claimant, of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Health and Safety

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.374668

Mackie v Dundee City Council: 2001

A dining hall table being moved by a caretaker was held to be work equipment.

Citations:

[2001] Rep LR 62

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSpencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others HL 2-Jul-2008
The deceased worked for the defendants on an oil rig. He was injured by a door closer he was attempting to repair. The defendants denied that the mechanism was equipment within the Regulations.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The door closer was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Scotland

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.270710

Trim Joint District School Board of Management v Kelly: HL 1914

Viscount Haldane LC said: ‘the construction of the Act ought to be more liberal as regards the claims of the workman than would be the case if the Act were construed with the closeness which distinguishes the construction of words in a contract such as that of insurance.’

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Viscount Haldane L-C

Citations:

[1914] AC 667

Statutes:

Workers Compensation Act 1897

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd and others CA 24-Jan-2006
The claimant was assaulted and severely injured at a night club by a doorman supplied to the club by a third party company now in liquidation. He claimed the club was the ‘temporary deemed employer’ of the doorman. He also sought to claim under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.237907

Regina v Davies: CACD 2003

The defendant said that section 40 of the 1974 Act was not compatible with the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) of the Convention, unless the section was read down to impose only an evidential burden on the defendant.
Held: The Act was regulatory and intended to protect health and safety of workers and other. In choosing to operate in a regulated sphere of activity, the defendant had accepted those controls and before any onus fell on him, under section 40, to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to do more, the prosecution had to prove that the defendant owed the relevant duty and the relevant safety standard had been breached. The facts relied on in support of the defence of reason practicability would be within the knowledge of the defendant, but, if there was merely an evidential burden on the defendant, the prosecution might face considerable difficulties, particularly in complicated, and potentially the most serious cases; that the consequences to the defendant of conviction did not involve the moral obloquy of a truly criminal offence and he would not face imprisonment. For those reasons, the imposition of a legal burden of proof in section 40 of the Act was justified, necessary and proportionate and was not incompatible with Article 6(2) of the Convention.

Citations:

[2003] ICR 586 (CA)

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 40, European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTransco Plc v Her Majesty’s Advocates HCJ 16-Sep-2004
A dwellinghouse had exploded, killing the occupants. The defendant was to be tried for alleged breaches of the 1974 Act in the gas supoplies to the house. The appellant complained that a jury trial would be an infringement of its rights, since a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Health and Safety, Human Rights

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.214189

Plumb v Cobden Flour Mills Co Ltd: HL 1914

In looking at restrictions by an employer to limit his vicarious liability, the court must distinguish between prohibitions which limit the sphere of employment and those which only deal with conduct within the sphere of employment:’ ‘there are prohibitions which limit the sphere of employment, and prohibitions which only deal with conduct within the sphere of employment’.

Judges:

Lord Dunedin

Citations:

[1914] AC 62

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
CitedCanadian Pacific Railway Co v Lockhart PC 1941
When considering the imposition of vicarious liability, ‘the first consideration is the ascertainment of what the servant is employed to do.’ (Lord Thankerton) and ‘It is clear that the master is responsible for acts actually authorised by him: for . .
CitedRose v Plenty CA 7-Jul-1975
Contrary to his employers orders, a milkman allowed children to assist him in his milkround. One was injured, and sued the milkman’s employer.
Held: The milkman had not gone so far outside the activities for which he was employed for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Health and Safety

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.193842

Nash v Parkinson Cowan Ltd: 1961

Judges:

Widgery J

Citations:

(1961) 105 S J 323

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMcDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc SC 22-Oct-2014
Contact visiting plants supported asbestos claim
The deceased had worked as a lorry driver regularly collecting pulverized fuel ash from a power station. On his visits he was at areas with asbestos dust. He came to die from mesothelioma. His widow now pursued his claim that the respondent had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.538249

Hindle v Birtwhistle: 1897

A machine or part is dangerous ‘if in the ordinary course of human affairs danger may reasonably be anticipated from the use of them without protection’.Wills J said: ‘In considering whether machinery is dangerous, the contingency of carelessness on the part of the workman in charge of it, and the frequency with which that contingency is likely to arise, are matters that must be taken into consideration.’ The question is entirely a question of degree.

Judges:

Wills J

Citations:

[1897] 1 QB 192, (1897) 61 JP 70

Health and Safety

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.471325

Lockhart v Kevin Oliphant Ltd: HCJ 1993

One of the company’s employees was electrocuted and died when a street lamp he was erecting touched an overhead power line. It was charged with a contravention of sections 2(1) and (2) and 33(1)(a) of the 1974 Act. The sheriff acquitted the respondent, holding that the Crown had not established a sufficient case against it because the company was entitled to rely on plans and the site engineer’s marking of the location of the lamp post. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The sherriff’s approach was incorrect

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk Ross

Citations:

1993 SLT 179

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedChargot Limited (T/A Contract Services) and Others, Regina v HL 10-Dec-2008
The victim died on a farm when his dumper truck overturned burying him in its load.
Held: The prosecutor needed to establish a prima facie case that the results required by the Act had not been achieved. He need only establish that a risk of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Crime

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.278945

Haigh v Charles W Ireland Ltd: HL 1974

Judges:

Lord Diplock

Citations:

1974 SC (HL) 1

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedSpencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others HL 2-Jul-2008
The deceased worked for the defendants on an oil rig. He was injured by a door closer he was attempting to repair. The defendants denied that the mechanism was equipment within the Regulations.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The door closer was . .
UnhelpfulKnowles v Liverpool City Council HL 15-Oct-1993
A flagstone being laid by a council employee was held to be ‘equipment provided by his employer for the purposes of the employer’s business’ under the 1969 Act. An employer is liable for the defective equipment he provides. What is equipment will . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.270712

Swain v Denso Martin Ltd: CA 24 Apr 2000

Where an employer required employees to carry weights which might lead to injury, he should provide the employee concerned with some indication of when the general weight involved, and if possible the exact weight. Having carried out a risk assessment alone was not sufficient. The Regulations must be read disjunctively.

Citations:

Times 24-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2793)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.89644

Blaenau Gwent Borough Council v Sabz Ali Khan: CA 4 May 1993

A land-owner is liable for work he has ordered to be carried out on his property. The ‘person carrying out the work under the regulations may not be the person or only the person who physically does the work.

Citations:

Times 04-May-1993

Statutes:

Building Regulations 1985 (1985 No 1065) 14(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Construction

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.78441

Close v Steel Company of Wales Ltd: 1962

The pursuer sought damages after injury arising from the use of a tool for a purpose other than that for which it was intended to be used. Lord Denning quoted Sir Frederick Pollock to say: ‘Judicial authority belongs not to the exact words used in this or that judgment, nor even to all the reasons given, but only to the principles accepted and applied as necessary grounds of the decision.’ referring to Selborne LC’s judgment in Caledonian Railway, he said: ‘A judgment which is right, and consistent with sound principles, upon the facts and circumstances of the case which the House had to decide, need not be construed as laying down a rule for a substantially different state of facts and circumstances, though some propositions, wider than the case itself required, may appear to have received countenance from those who then advised the House.’

Judges:

Lord Denning

Citations:

[1962] AC 367

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCaledonian Railway Co v Walker’s Trustees 1882
The court considered the extent of the duty to compensate for disturbance of a business when land was compulsorily purchased. Lord Selborne LC said: ‘The obstruction by the execution of the work, of a man’s direct access to his house or land, . .
CitedQuinn v Leathem HL 5-Aug-1901
Unlawful Means Conspiracy has two forms
Quinn was treasurer of a Belfast butchers’ association. Leathem, who traded as a butcher, employed some non-union men, although when the union made difficulties he asked for them to be admitted to the union, and offered to pay their dues. The union . .

Cited by:

CitedRobb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Scotland, Constitutional

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.247757

Richards v Highway Ironfounders (West Bromwich) Ltd: CA 1955

The plaintiff was found to have had to work in clouds of silica dust.

Judges:

Sir Raymond Evershed MR

Citations:

[1955] 1 WLR 1049

Cited by:

CitedMcDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc SC 22-Oct-2014
Contact visiting plants supported asbestos claim
The deceased had worked as a lorry driver regularly collecting pulverized fuel ash from a power station. On his visits he was at areas with asbestos dust. He came to die from mesothelioma. His widow now pursued his claim that the respondent had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.538251

Banks v Woodhall Duckham and Others: CA 30 Nov 1955

The plaintiff had been employed by the first defendant as a pipe fitter at two steel works occupied and operated by predecessors of the second defendant. He had worked two years at each of the sites erecting pipes, breaking into old pipes and knocking off old lagging between an inch and three inches in thickness; his overalls would be smothered in powdered lagging and that it would be in the air for quite some time. He said it would take an hour to two hours to knock such lagging off. He would then fit new pipes and laggers would then attend to fit the new lagging, mixing asbestos in 40 gallon drums, making a lot of mess when opening the bags and mixing the materials. Claims were made against each defendant (along with other employers of the claimant) at common law and for breaches of section 47(1) and of the 1931 Regulations.
Held: section 47(1) did not apply to the plaintiff. There was force in the submission that the business of lagging pipes was not a process being carried on in the factory (inferentially indicating that the section might not apply for that reason), but Stuart-Smith LJ continued as follows: ‘The next point is whether or not the plaintiff was a person employed within the meaning of s 47? In my judgment, the words ‘person employed’ in s 47 relate back to the words found earlier in the section, namely ‘in connection with any process’. That seems to me to be the natural reading of the words, and they do not apply to persons who may happen to be in the factory in general. That was the view which Rose J took in Morrison and The Central Electricity Board v Babcock and Wilcox (Unreported, 15 March 1986). He said: ‘The first question that arises in the present case, and it is one that is apparently free from direct authority, is whether the persons employed to whom the section twice refers include within the ambit of the protection provided by the section someone who like this plaintiff was not himself engaged in the dust making process. Mr Mclaren urges that this is a statute imposing a criminal penalty and it should therefore be strictly construed. That submission in my judgment is largely answered by the speech of Lord Porter in Harrison v The National Coal Board [1951] AC 639 at p 650. It has, however, to be remembered that this Act is also a remedial measure, passed for the protection of the workmen and must therefore be read so as to effect its object so far as the wording fairly and reasonably permits, but, in my judgment, the words ‘the persons employed’ means ‘persons employed in the process’. If it had been intended to extend the protection to persons employed in the factory generally, the section could have been so worded, as, for example, section 14(1) of the Act is worded in relation to secure fencing, section 63 specifically refers to a process whereas it could have been referred to the factory generally. Furthermore, the specific reference to ‘any work room’ reinforced the suggestion that it is those who are in a limited area of the factory rather than those in the factory at large for whose protection the section is designed.’
That was a case under s 63 of the Factories Act 1961 which is similar in terms to s 47 of the 1937 Act.
It is right to say that Buxton J, in a case which we do not have, took a different view. He apparently based himself on the language of s 49, as it then was of the 1937 Act, which is the section dealing with the protection of eyes . .’ That was the relevant consideration which Streatfield J dealt with in the case of Waley, to which I have referred. It is true that in that case, because of the grammar and language of the section, the ‘persons employed in the process’ is to be found expressly stated, but in my judgment, although there is a large part of the section in between the words ‘process’ and ‘persons employed’, the natural reading of the section is as I have indicated. I therefore would agree with Rose J and respectfully disagree with Buxton J on the construction of that section.’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith, Swinton Thomas and Butler-Sloss LJJ

Citations:

Unreported 30 November 1955

Statutes:

Factories Act 1937 47, Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 2(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBrophy v J C Bradfield and Co Ltd CA 1955
Singleton LJ said as to regard to section 47: ‘That section again deals with work rooms and with processes carried on in the factory. For the reason I have given with regard to section 4(1) I do not think that section 47(1) applies to the facts of . .

Cited by:

CitedMcDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc SC 22-Oct-2014
Contact visiting plants supported asbestos claim
The deceased had worked as a lorry driver regularly collecting pulverized fuel ash from a power station. On his visits he was at areas with asbestos dust. He came to die from mesothelioma. His widow now pursued his claim that the respondent had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.538244

Kelly v Pierhead Ltd: 1967

Citations:

[1967] 1 WLR 65, [1967] 1 All ER 657

Cited by:

CitedFerguson v John Dawson and Partners (Contractors) Ltd CA 22-Jul-1976
The plaintiff had fallen from a roof whilst working for the defendants, and had claimed damages for breach of statutory duty. The parties disputed whether the plaintiff was an employee or a self-employed independent contractor.
Held: The real . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.535597

Paramor v Dover Harbour Board: 1967

Salmon LJ responded to an argument that ‘if the bare possibility of injury and accident could reasonably be foreseen, then the means of access [to a place of work] is not ‘safe”, saying that there ‘is, of course, a risk of injury and accident inherent in every human operation’ but that whether a means of access was safe involved ‘assessing the risk in all the circumstances of the case’ and ‘must be a question of fact and degree in each case’.

Judges:

Salmon LJ

Citations:

[1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 107

Statutes:

Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Regulations 1960 (SI 1960/1932)

Cited by:

CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.440383

Kellett v British Rail Engineering Ltd: QBD 3 May 1984

The relevant level of noise exposure above which a reasonable employer should take protective steps was of direct relevance in the early case of noise-induced hearing loss.
Held: There had been exposure for long periods initially in the period 1946 to 1955 below 90dB(A) and then in the period 1955 to 1979 above 90dB(A), and proceeded on the basis that ‘The level of 90 is generally recognised as being a figure above which it is necessary for precautions to be taken’. That was the basis on which it was accepted that the defendants, who had taken no precautions until 1979, were negligent.

Judges:

Popplewell J

Citations:

Unreported, 3 May 1984

Cited by:

CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.440367

Liptrot v British Railways Board: HL 1969

Citations:

[1969] 1 AC 136

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.440377

Trott v WE Smith (Erectors) Ltd: CA 1957

A means of access is unsafe if it is a possible cause of injury to anybody acting in a way that a person may be reasonably expected to act in circumstances which may reasonably be expected to occur. Safe cannot mean ‘absolutely safe’.

Judges:

Jenkins LJ

Citations:

[1957] 1 WLR 1154, [1957] 3 All ER 500

Cited by:

CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.440381

Wotherspoon v HM Advocate: 1978

The Lord Justice General set out the requirements to establish an offence under section 37(4) of the Act. Where the officer of the company had no actual knowledge of the breach of the regulations, the question was whether he should have been put on inquiry by the circumstances so as to have made inquiries as to the implementation of the procedures. Lord Justice General Emslie said the section is concerned primarily to provide a penal sanction against those persons charged with functions of management who can be shown to have been responsible for the commission of the offence by a body corporate, and that the functions of the office which he holds will be a highly relevant consideration.

Judges:

Lord Justice General Emslie

Citations:

(1978) JC 74

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 37(4)

Cited by:

CitedRegina v P Ltd and Another CACD 11-Jul-2007
A child had been injured when a load fell from a fork lift truck. It was said not to have been secured as required by Health and Safety Regulations. The company was to be prosecuted. The prosecutor appealed a preliminary ruling that in order to . .
CitedChargot Limited (T/A Contract Services) and Others, Regina v HL 10-Dec-2008
The victim died on a farm when his dumper truck overturned burying him in its load.
Held: The prosecutor needed to establish a prima facie case that the results required by the Act had not been achieved. He need only establish that a risk of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Health and Safety

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.258851

Rogers v George Blair: 1971

The court considered the suitability of some goggles as a means of protecting a workman’s eyes.
Held: To be suitable, the protection need not make it impossible for an accident to occur but it must make it highly unlikely.

Judges:

Salmon LJ

Citations:

[1971] 11 KIR 391

Cited by:

CitedMarks and Spencer Plc v Palmer CA 9-Oct-2001
The claimant had tripped against a weather strip which protruded by less than 1 cm above the surface of doorway of the staff exit from one of the defendant’s stores. It was a permanent fixture and, as such, was part of the construction of the floor. . .
CitedEllis v Bristol City Council CA 5-Jul-2007
The claimant appealed dismissal of her claim for personal injuries. She worked at a nursing home, and had slipped on urine on the floor. Slip mats had been placed on the floor, but had been insufficient. There had been previous accidents, and a risk . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.254496

Norris v W Moss and Sons Ltd: CA 1954

The employer had erected scaffolding in a way which infringed the Regulations.
Held: He was not to be held liable to his employee who had noticed the defect and set about remedying it negligently and was injured as a result. The breach of the Regulations was not the cause of the accident.

Citations:

[1954] 1 WLR 346

Statutes:

Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations 1948

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.231182

McWilliams v Sir William Arrol and Co Ltd: HL 1962

A steel erector had fallen seventy feet to his death from a steel lattice tower. The employers had not provided a safety harness, but the judge found that he would not have used a security belt even if provided, and that the onus was on the pursuer to prove that the deceased would have worn a safety belt.
Held: The claim failed. The onus was on the pursuer to establish, not only the breach of duty, but also the causal connection between the breach of duty and the accident; that what the deceased would have done, if a safety belt had been provided, was a matter of inference from the appropriate facts, and that, in the present case, the inference was that he would not have worn a belt; further that there was no obligation on the employers to instruct or exhort him to wear a safety belt. Liability was not established.

Lord Reid said: ‘It has been suggested that the decision of this House in Wardlaw v Bonnington Castings Ltd 1956 S.C. (H.L.) 26 lays down new law and increased the burden on pursuers. I do not think so. It states what has always been the law – a pursuer must prove his case. He must prove that the fault of the defender caused or contributed to the damage which he has suffered. But proof need not be by direct evidence. If general practice or a regulation requires that some safety appliance shall be provided, one would assume that it is of some use, and that a reasonable man would use it. And one would assume that the injured man was a reasonable man. So the initial onus on the pursuer to connect the failure to provide the appliance with the accident would normally be discharged merely by proving the circumstances which led to the accident, and it is only where the evidence throws doubt on either of these assumptions that any difficulty would arise. Normally, it would be left to the defender to adduce evidence, if he could, to displace these assumptions. So, in practice, it would be realistic, even if not theoretically accurate, to say that the onus is generally on the defender to show that the man would not have used the appliance, even if it had been available. But in the end, when all the evidence has been brought out, it rarely matters where the onus originally lay: the question is which way the balance of probability has come to rest.’

Judges:

Lord Reid

Citations:

[1962] 1 WLR 295, 1962 SC (HL) 70

Statutes:

Factories Act 1937

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedBonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw HL 1-Mar-1956
The injury of which the employee complained came from two sources, a pneumatic hammer, in respect of which the employers were not in breach of the relevant Regulations; and swing grinders, in respect of which they were in breach.
Held: It had . .

Cited by:

CitedGregg v Scott HL 27-Jan-2005
The patient saw his doctor and complained about a lump under his arm. The doctor failed to diagnose cancer. It was nine months before treatment was begun. The claimant sought damages for the reduction in his prospects of disease-free survival for . .
CitedMcTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.222466

Dooley v Cammell Laird and Co Ltd: 1951

The plaintiff was a crane driver whose load of timber, drums of paint, and bags of bolts etc, and without any fault on his part, fell into the hold of a ship as they were being lowered along with scaffolding. No one was actually injured but the plaintiff knew that fellow workers were then in the hold, and he suffered nervous shock. He sued his employers saying that the sling was either overloaded or defective in breach of shipbuilding regulations and the common law duties to provide safe plant and a safe system.
Held: The plaintiff was entitled to recover in those circumstances. Cammell Laird were in breach of the regulations. one of which was made as a protection against the risk of bodily injury which included injury to the nerves, the nerves being a part of the body.
Donovan J said: ‘I suppose I may reasonably infer that his fellow workmen down the hold were his friends,’ Mr Dooley was the unwitting agent of the defendant’s negligence. He was the crane driver who, without any fault, was party to an accident which could have killed his fellow workers. It was his activity in operating the crane which caused the actual and potential damage. It was that activity which brought him into the category of persons for whom the defendants owed a duty of care, not really any question of relationships of friendships.

Judges:

Donovan J

Citations:

[1951] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 271

Cited by:

CitedSalter v UB Frozen Chilled Foods OHCS 25-Jul-2003
The pursuer was involved in an accident at work, where his co-worker died. He suffered only psychiatric injury.
Held: Being directly involved, the pursuer was a primary victim, and accordingly not subject to the limits on claiming for . .
CitedAlcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police QBD 31-Jul-1990
Overcrowding at a football match lead to the deaths of 95 people. The defendant’s employees had charge of safety at the match, and admitted negligence vis-a-vis those who had died and been injured. The plaintiffs sought damages, some of them for . .
CitedAlcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991
The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. The defendant police service had not . .
CitedAlcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police CA 31-May-1991
The defendant policed a football match at which many people died. The plaintiffs, being relatives and friends of the deceased, inter alia suffered nervous shock having seen the events either from within the ground, or from outside or at home on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages, Health and Safety

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.186974

Regina v Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd: CA 1982

The defendants did not warn a contractor’s workmen of the risk of fire from an oxygen-enriched atmosphere. As a result, one of them accidentally started a fire in which eight employees died.
Held: The employers were convicted under section 2(1). The duty under that section includes an obligation to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to safeguard employees from being injured by the activities of contractors and their employees

Judges:

Dunn LJ

Citations:

[1982] 1 All E R 264

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 291)

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Associated Octel Ltd HL 14-Nov-1996
The appellants operated a chemical plant. When the plant was shut down for its annual maintenance, an independent firm repaired a tank lining. An employee of that firm was working by electric light. He had to clean the tank with acetone and resin. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Crime

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.184756

Regina v Mara: CA 1987

The court considered whether the cleaning of a factory constituted part of its undertaking.
Held: ‘A factory, for example, may shut down on Saturdays and Sundays for manufacturing purposes, but the employer may have the premises cleaned by a contractor over the weekend. If the contractor’s employees are exposed to risks to health or safety because machinery is left insecure, or vats containing noxious substances are left unfenced, it is, in our judgment, clear that the factory owner is in breach of his duty under section 3(1). The way in which he conducts his undertaking is to close his factory for manufacturing purposes over the weekend and to have it cleaned during the shut down period. It would clearly be reasonably practicable to secure machinery and noxious vats, and on the plain wording of the section he would be in breach of his duty if he failed to do so.’

Judges:

Parker L.J

Citations:

[1987] 1 WLR 87

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Associated Octel Ltd HL 14-Nov-1996
The appellants operated a chemical plant. When the plant was shut down for its annual maintenance, an independent firm repaired a tank lining. An employee of that firm was working by electric light. He had to clean the tank with acetone and resin. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.184758

Regina v Rollco Screw and Rivet Co Ltd and others: CACD 29 Apr 1999

When assessing penalties to be imposed upon companies convicted under the Acts, the court should ensure the gravity of the offence is marked, that directors perceive their personal responsibility, but can be paid over a longer term.

Citations:

Times 29-Apr-1999

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.85465

Bilton v Fastnet Highlands LTd: OHCS 20 Nov 1997

It was for the defenders to say what steps they had been taken to comply with their obligations under the Regulations, not for an employee complainant to say what should happen.

Citations:

Times 20-Nov-1997, [1998] SLT 1323

Statutes:

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 (SI 1988 No 1657)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedDugmore v Swansea NHS Trust and Another CA 21-Nov-2002
The claimant had become sensitive to latex dust while working for the first employer, then suffered an anaphylactic shock when coming into contact with the dust while employed by the second.
Held: The regulations required that ‘every employer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.78406

Seaboard Offshore Ltd v Secretary of State Transport: QBD 24 Mar 1993

A company is not vicariously liable for the failure of the Captain of ship to comply with the section. The section was not framed so as to appear to give rise to criminal liability of an employer for acts of an employee in such circumstances. The owner did not have personal vicarious liability for everything done in operating the ship.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Mar-1993

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1988 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.89075

RMC Roadstone Products Ltd v Jester: QBD 8 Feb 1994

The employers engaged contractors to repair a building. The employers were going to buy new asbestos sheets for the purpose but the contractors offered to remove some from an adjacent disused factory. The employers obtained the permission of the owner. Their projects manager inspected the site with the contractors and warned them to be careful. They offered to supply the contractors with equipment. One of the contractors fell through a skylight on the roof of the disused building and was killed. The employers were charged under section 3(1) and the justices convicted. They said that it was not necessary for the employers to control the site on which the work was done to be liable. They were in a position to give specific instructions to the contractors as to how the work should be carried on. They therefore owed a duty under section 3(1).
Held: The conviction was set aside. The court was ‘unable to accept that the mere capacity or opportunity to exercise control over an activity is enough to bring that activity within the ambit of the employer’s conduct of his undertaking. Before he can say that an activity is within his conduct of his undertaking, the employer must, in my judgment, either exercise some actual control over it or be under a duty to do so. If the principal chooses to leave the independent contractor to do the work in the way he thinks fit, I consider that the work is not within the ambit of the principal’s conduct of his undertaking. It is wholly the contractor’s undertaking.’

Judges:

Smith J

Citations:

Times 08-Feb-1994, [1994] 4 All ER 1037

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

DoubtedRegina v Associated Octel Ltd HL 14-Nov-1996
The appellants operated a chemical plant. When the plant was shut down for its annual maintenance, an independent firm repaired a tank lining. An employee of that firm was working by electric light. He had to clean the tank with acetone and resin. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88794

Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another: Admn 26 Apr 2005

Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of statutes that the courts should seek to construe them so as to produce a just and fair law. The courts presume that Parliament intended to legislate justly, fairly and reasonably Adult swimmers with full knowledge of the risks were free to take them. The risks arose from their choice to take them, not from the permission which might be given.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 713 (Admin), Times 19-May-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 2930

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety At Work Act 1974 3, Hampstead Heath Act 1871 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedTomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .
CitedRegina (on the Application of Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 29-Nov-2001
The applicant was terminally ill, and entirely dependent upon her husband for care. She foresaw a time when she would wish to take her own life, but would not be able to do so without the active assistance of her husband. She sought a proleptic . .
CitedRegina v British Steel Plc CACD 31-Dec-1994
British Steel employed two sub-contractors to work in moving a steel tower under their supervision. One platform fell on one of the sub-contractors, killing him. British Steel claimed they had delegated their responsibilities under the Act, and were . .
CitedDickenson v Fletcher 1873
A penal statute should receive a strict or restrictive interpretation. Brett J said: ‘Those who contend that a penalty may be inflicted must show that the words of the Act distinctly enact that it shall be incurred under the present circumstances. . .
CitedFrancis v Yiewsley and West Drayton Urban District Council 1958
The claimant was said to have failed to comply with an enforcement notice.
Held: A person prosecuted for failure to discontinue a use in accordance with an enforcement notice could challenge the validity of the notice before the criminal court . .
CitedRegina v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum CA 26-May-1993
The appellants were convicted of failing to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, persons not in their employment were not exposed to risks to their health and safety. One of their buildings . .
CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
CitedRatcliff v McConnell and Jones CA 30-Nov-1998
The claimant, a nineteen year old student climbed into a college property in the early hours of the morning, and then took a running dive into the shallow end of a swimming pool, suffering severe injuries. He was accompanied by friends and had been . .
CitedDarby v National Trust CA 29-Jan-2001
The claimant’s husband drowned swimming in a pond on the National Trust estate at Hardwick Hall. Miss Rebecca Kirkwood, the Water and Leisure Safety Consultant to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, gave uncontradicted evidence, which . .
CitedWeld-Blundell v Stephens HL 1920
A physical cause may be irrelevant as a matter of law. The law is concerned not with causation, but with responsibility. Lord Sumner said: ‘more than half of human kind are tale-bearers by nature’.
Where a legal wrong was committed without loss . .
CitedDonoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited CA 27-Feb-2003
The claimant had decided to go for a midnight swim, but was injured diving and hitting a submerged bed. The landowner appealed a finding that it was 25% liable. The claimant asserted that the defendant knew that swimmers were common.
Held: The . .
CitedRegina v Associated Octel Ltd CACD 3-Aug-1994
The company was said to have failed in its duties under section 3(1) of the 1974 Act.
Held: The maintenance and cleaning of a company’s premises can be part of its undertaking, for which its managers are criminally responsible, even if outside . .
CitedM’Lean v Bell 1932
The House considered liability in negligence after a motor accident.
Lord Wright said: ‘In one sense, but for the negligence of the pursuer (if she was negligent) in attempting to cross the road, she would not have been struck, and as a . .
CitedAustin Rover Group Ltd v Her Majesty’s Inspector of Factories HL 1990
The relevant factors in the phrase the words ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ are the foreseeable risk of injury and the cost of the preventive measures. ‘Sections 2 and 3 impose duties in relation to safety on a single person, whether an . .
CitedNorris v W Moss and Sons Ltd CA 1954
The employer had erected scaffolding in a way which infringed the Regulations.
Held: He was not to be held liable to his employee who had noticed the defect and set about remedying it negligently and was injured as a result. The breach of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.224387

Reed v Great Western Railway Co: HL 29 Oct 1908

The appellant’s deceased husband was an engine-driver in the respondents’ service. In March 1907, while his engine was at Landore, Swansea, he descended in order to turn a water-crane to his engine. He afterwards crossed another line of rails in order to get a book from a friend on another engine. This was a private purpose of the deceased’s, unconnected with his work. While returning to his own engine he was knocked down and killed by a waggon in course of shunting. Held that the accident did not arise ‘out of and in the course of’ his employment under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897, section 1.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Ashbourne, Macnaghten, and James of Hereford

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 700, 46 SLR 700

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621523

George v Glasgow Coal Co, Ltd: HL 9 Nov 1908

Under the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887 an additional special rule was in force in a mine which provided-‘The bottomer at a mid-working. . . shall not open the gate fencing the shaft until the cage is stopped at such mid-working . . ‘
A bottomer at a mid-working, in need of the cage, signalled for it by calling down the shaft to the bottomer at the foot, who again signalled to the engineer at the surface to raise the cage which was then at the foot. This was the usual mode of signalling, and the engineer on receipt of the signal, generally, without further signal, stopped the cage at the mid-working, but he did not invariably do so. On the occasion in question he did not stop the cage at the mid-working. The bottomer there after having heard the signal given to the engineer, without ascertaining whether the cage had stopped, in breach of the additional special rule, opened the gate fencing the shaft, and then went behind his hutch and pushed it into the shaft. The hutch fell to the bottom of the shaft dragging the miner with it, and he received injuries, which however were not serious or permanent. A few days prior to the accident he had been warned as to non-observance of the rule. In an arbitration under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 the arbiter found that the bottomer’s injuries were due to his own ‘serious and wilful misconduct,’ and refused compensation.
Held that there was evidence upon which the arbiter might so find.
Observations (per Lord Chancellor and Lord Robertson) upon the effect towards establishing ‘serious and wilful misconduct’ of an admitted or proved breach of a statutory rule by the workman.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Robertson and Lord Collins

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 28, 46 SLR 28

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Health and Safety

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621525

Ismay, Imrie, and Co v Williamson: HL 31 Jul 1908

A workman in poor physical condition was engaged in a steamer’s stokehold raking ashes from the furnace; he received a heat-stroke from the radiation of the boiler and died in a few hours.
Held ( diss. Lord Macnaghten) that the death was caused by accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Ashbourne and Macnaghten

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 699, 46 SLR 699

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621517

Houlder Line Ltd v Griffin: HL 14 Apr 1905

A seaman was accidentally injured while engaged in his ordinary work as a sailor on board his ship. At the time she had completed coaling and was lying in the middle of the dock basin moored to buoys and waiting to proceed to sea on the following day.
Held (diss Lord James of Hereford) that the employment in which the injured man was engaged was not one to which the Workmen’s Compensation Act applied.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lords Macnaghten, James of Hereford, and Lindley

Citations:

[1905] UKHL 865, 42 SLR 865

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897 1 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621177

John Watson Ltd v Brown: HL 28 Apr 1914

In consequence of a wreck in one of the shafts of a mine the miners were ordered to the surface. Those accustomed to ascend by the damaged shaft were directed to ascend by another shaft. They were detained an hour and a-half waiting until this shaft was free, the miners accustomed to use it being taken up first. While waiting they in their heated state were exposed to a downdraught of cold air. One of them caught a chill, upon which pneumonia supervened and he died. The arbiter in a claim for compensation found that his death was due to accident arising out of the employment. Held (rev. judgment of the Second Division) that the arbiter’s finding was right.

Judges:

Lord Dunedin, Lord Kinnear, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, and Lord Parmoor

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 492, 51 SLR 492

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620713

Smith v Fife Coal Co, Ltd: HL 28 Apr 1914

Under statutory rules a shot in a mine should have been fired in the following way:-The miner’s duty was to insert and stem the detonator which was given to him by a duly appointed official called the shot-firer. The shot-firer’s duty it then was to attach the end of the cable to the detonator, thereafter to couple up the other end of the cable, which had to be at least 20 yards in length, with
the electrical apparatus, having, however, before doing so seen that all persons in the vicinity had taken proper shelter. A shot-firer was in the habit of getting the miners to attach the cable to the detonator. He handed a detonator and the end of the cable to a miner. The miner had inserted and stemmed the detonator and attached the end of the cable to it, and had turned round and was just going away for shelter when the charge was fired. The miner was seriously injured. The arbiter found that the accident arose out of the employment, and was not to be attributed to the miner having arrogated to himself duties outwith the sphere of his employment.
Held (rev. judgment of the Second Division) that the arbiter’s finding was right.

Judges:

Lord Dunedin, Lord Kinnear, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, and Lord Parmoor

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 496, 51 SLR 496

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620717

Lloyd v Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Co, Ltd: HL 6 Apr 1914

Frank Whittall was a miner and was killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the respondents. Thomas Lloyd was the illegitimate son of Alice Lloyd by Frank Whittall, born seven months after the latter’s death. At the arbitration Alice Lloyd gave evidence, objected to by the respondents but admitted and accepted by the arbitrator, that Whittall shortly before his death promised to marry her before the child was born. William Jones and Matilda Evans, whose evidence was similarly objected to and accepted, also testified to Whittall’s intention to marry Alice Lloyd.
Being satisfied by this evidence that Whittall had intended to marry Alice Lloyd before the birth of the child, and that at the time of Whittall’s death Thomas Lloyd was wholly dependent on his earnings, the arbitrator made an award for pounds 213 and costs.
The Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator was wrong in deciding that Thomas Lloyd was a dependant of Whittall within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, and in admitting the evidence of Alice Lloyd, William Jones, and Matilda Evans.
Held: Where a claim was made on behalf of the posthumous illegitimate child of a workman who was killed by an accident in the course of his employment, held that (a) statements made by the workman to the effect that the child was his and that he would marry the mother before the child was born are evidence of paternity and dependence; ( b) the County Court Judge cannot on a claim based on partial dependence award compensation based on total dependence.
Opinion per Lord Shaw that the fact of dependency, whether in the case of legitimate or illegitimate children, does not necessarily rest on proving a promise of support by the father.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson, Shaw, and Moulton

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 631, 52 SLR 631

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620714

Board of Management of Trim Joint District School v Kelly: HL 6 Apr 1914

A schoolmaster at an industrial school, while performing his duties, was assaulted and killed by two of his pupils (who had formed a conspiracy for that purpose, and were afterwards tried and found guilty of manslaughter). A dependant having claimed compensation, the County Court Judge found that the deceased met his death by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Held (1) that his death was due to an accident, and (2) that there was evidence to support the finding of the arbitrator that the accident arose out of his employment.
Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, and Parker dissented.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Viscount Haldane), Earl Loreburn, Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, Shaw, Parker, and Reading

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 612, 52 SLR 612

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620711

Blair and Co Ltd v Chilton: HL 11 May 1915

Contrary to orders, a boy employed on a machine sat on the guard of the machine, and in consequence caught his foot in the machinery. Had he been standing the accident could not have happened.
Held that he was entitled to compensation.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lords Parker, Sumner, and Parmoor

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 503, 53 SLR 503

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620683

Woods v Thomas Wilson Sons and Co Ltd: HL 1 Mar 1915

A coalheaver was struck in the abdomen by a fall of coal while coaling a ship. He died from peritonitis, and the medical evidence showed him to have been suffering from chronic appendicitis. The question arose whether his death was the result of the blow or of the disease. The arbitrator found his widow entitled to compensation on the ground that the blow was the immediate cause of death though it would not have killed a healthy man. Held ( diss. Lords Parker and Sumner and rev. decision of Court of Appeal, 6 B.W.C.C. 750), that the award proceeded on sufficient evidence.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson, Parker, Sumner, and Parmoor

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 516, 53 SLR 516

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620680

Smith v Davis and Sons Ltd: HL 29 Mar 1915

Compensation had been paid by weekly payments for injuries received by a workman, and had been discontinued on the workman’s recovery and return to work. About two years later the workman, having meantime been in hospital with an illness which was not the result of the accident, claimed compensation on the ground of partial incapacity arising from the original injuries. The employers demanded that the work-man should submit to medical examination, and on the second occasion the man refused to do so. Consequently the employers, successfully, applied to the County Court for an order staying the proceedings till he should submit himself to such examination. Held (aff. Court of Appeal, 7 B.W.C.C. 138) that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, Sched. I, par. 4, which paragraph here applied, the workman was bound to submit to as many examinations as the employer might reasonably require, and that there was no suggestion that the demand was in this case unreasonable.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson and Parker

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 524, 53 SLR 524

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620679

Parker v Owners of Ship ‘Black Rock’: HL 11 May 1915

A seaman, with leave, went on shore to buy provisions, his contract of service being ‘Crew to supply their own provisions.’ On the seaman’s return he fell into the water and was drowned, somewhere in the length of the pier at the end of which his ship had been moored, but from which she had been moved to another berth.
Held that the accident did not arise ‘out of and in the course of his employment.’

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lords Parker, Sumner, Parmoor, and Wrenbury

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 500, 53 SLR 500

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Personal Injury, Employment

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620684

Jackson v General Steam Fishing Co, Ltd: HL 29 Jul 1909

A watchman was employed to look after some trawlers while lying in a harbour, his duties extending from Saturday afternoon to Sunday afternoon, a period of 25 hours. He supplied his own food, which was sometimes brought him by members of his family. It was necessary for him at times to be on the quay. On Saturday night he went to an hotel a short distance from the quay, had half-a-glass of whisky and a glass of beer, and on returning to the quay proceeded to descend a fixed ladder to get on board one of the trawlers, when he slipped, fell into the water, and was drowned. He had only been absent at the hotel a short time.
Held (rev. judgment of the Second Division) that there was evidence to support a finding by an arbiter that the accident was one ‘arising out of and in the course of’ the employment; per Lords Ashbourne, Atkinson, and Shaw, on the ground that the watchman had returned to, and was within, the sphere of his duty when the accident occurred; and per Lord James, on the ground that the obtaining of refreshment was necessary for the fulfilment of his duty- dissenting the Lord Chancellor, on the ground that though the watchman had arrived within the ambit of his duty, he was not on the ladder in the course of it, but in returning to it; and Lord Gorell, on the ground that the duty of watching prohibited the watchman’s being away, and while he was entitled to be on the quay, there was no proof, the onus being on the claimant, that the watchman was there in connection with his duty. Authorities reviewed.
Observations, per Lord Shaw, approving and applying Henderson v. Glasgow Corporation, July 5, 1900, 2 F. 1127, 37 S.L.R. 857, to the effect that where an arbiter is of opinion that the question whether an accident is one arising out of and in the course of the employment is purely one of fact, he is entitled so to find and to refuse to state a case.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord James of Hereford, Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, and Lord Shaw of Dunfermline

Citations:

[1909] UKHL 901

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620587

Britannic Merthyr Coal Co v David: HL 13 Dec 1909

A blasting accident occurred in a coal mine, and an action was raised against the mine-owners in respect of injuries received by a miner. It was proved that statutory regulations as to the methods of blasting had been broken, certain obligatory precautions not having been taken. Under these circumstances held that the onus of proof lay upon the mine-owners to show that they had not failed in their duty of care.

Judges:

The Earl of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne, Atkinson, Gorell, and Shaw

Citations:

[1909] UKHL 609

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620593

Barnabas v Bersham Colliery Co: HL 9 Nov 1910

A workman suffered from a diseased condition of the arteries, and he died of an apoplectic seizure while engaged at work. There was no evidence to show that the apoplexy resulted from a strain or any other incident of labour.
Held that there was no evidence that the death had occurred from accident arising out of the employment

Citations:

[1910] UKHL 727, 48 SLR 727

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619801

Butler (or Black) v Fife Coal Co, Ltd: HL 19 Dec 1911

The court considered whether a civil remedy existed for breach of statutory duty. Lord Kinnear said: ‘If the duty be established, I do not think there is any serious question as to civil liability. There is no reasonable ground for maintaining that a proceeding by way of penalty is the only remedy allowed by the statute. . We are to consider the scope and purpose of the statute and in particular for whose benefit it is intended. Now the object of the present statute is plain. It was intended to compel mine owners to make due provision for the safety of the men working in their mines, and the persons for whose benefit all these rules are to be enforced are the persons exposed to danger. But when a duty of this kind is imposed for the benefit of particular persons, there arises at common law a correlative right in those persons who may be injured by its contravention. Therefore I think that it is impossible to hold that the penalty clause detracts in any way from the prima facie right of the persons for whose benefit the statutory enactment has been passed to enforce the civil liability. I think this has been found both in England and Scotland in cases in which the point was directly raised, the case of Groves v. Lord Wimborne in England and Kelly v. Glebe Sugar Refining Company in Scotland.’
The Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887, sec. 49, enacts-‘The following general rules shall be observed, so far as is reasonably practicable, in every mine.’
Held that although this did not impose on the mine-owner an absolute duty that the rules be observed, it placed on him, in the event of a breach of a rule, the onus of proving that he had done everything that was practicable to have the rule observed. If he failed to discharge this onus, he was liable at common law for any damage resulting therefrom, and could not derive protection from the doctrine of common employment.
Circumstances in which held that the owners of a coal mine were liable at common law and not under the Employers’ Liability Act 1880 only, for the death of a miner from carbon monoxide gas, where the presence of the miner in the mine was held to be due to breaches of general rules 4 (1) and 7, and special rule 37, by the under-manager in charge of the mine and the fireman, inasmuch as the mine-owners had not taken, such means as were open to them of making these officials competent to deal with carbon monoxide.
Lord Kinnear said: ‘We are to consider the scope and purpose of the statute and in particular for whose benefit it is intended. Now the object of the present statute is plain. It was intended to compel mine owners to make due provision for the safety of the men working in their mines, and the persons for whose benefit all these rules are to be enforced are the persons exposed to danger. But when a duty of this kind is imposed for the benefit of particular persons, there arises at common law a correlative right in those persons who may be injured by its contravention. Therefore I think it is quite impossible to hold that the penalty clause detracts in any way from the prima facie right of the persons for whose benefit the statutory enactment has been passed to enforce the civil liability.’

Judges:

The Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord Kinnear, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1912] AC 149, [1911] UKHL 228, 1912 SC (HL) 33, 49 SLR 228, [1912] AC 149

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887 49

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedGroves v Lord Wimborne CA 1898
The court heard a case dealing with a claim for breach of a duty to fence dangerous machinery under the Act.
Held: Legislation protecting safety in the workplace gives rise to an action by a person for whom the protection was intended for . .
At SCSBlack v The Fife Coal Co, Ltd SCS 24-Nov-1908
. .

Cited by:

CitedZiemniak v ETPM Deep Sea Ltd CA 7-May-2003
A seaman was injured taking part in a safety drill aboard ship. The defendant had been found not to be negligent, but the claimant alleged breach of statutory duty under the Regulations.
Held: Groves v Wimborne clearly established that . .
CitedCampbell v Gordon SC 6-Jul-2016
The employee was injured at work, but in a way excluded from the employers insurance cover. He now sought to make the sole company director liable, hoping in term to take action against the director’s insurance brokers for negligence, the director . .
Dictum ApprovedCutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd HL 1949
The Act required the occupier of a licensed racetrack to take all steps necessary to secure that, so long as a totalisator was being lawfully operated on the track, there was available for bookmakers space on the track where they could conveniently . .
Dictum ApprovedLonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) HL 1-Apr-1981
No General Liability in Tort for Wrongful Acts
The plaintiff had previously constructed an oil supply pipeline from Beira to Mozambique. After Rhodesia declared unilateral independence, it became a criminal offence to supply to Rhodesia without a licence. The plaintiff ceased supply as required, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619220

Taylor v London and North-Western Railway Co: HL 19 Feb 1912

The appellant in this case was in the employment of the respondents, and as the result of an accident received injuries which entitled him to compensation, the amount of which was settled in an agreement in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 58). On an application by the respondents to the County Court Judge to review the agreement, evidence being forthcoming that the appellant had completely recovered, the latter granted an order terminating the agreement. This appeal was brought on the grounds that the County Court Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in terminating the agreement, or alternatively that the agreement was an attempt to contract out of the Act, and therefore void.
The Court of Appeal ( Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Fletcher-Moulton, and Farwell, L.JJ.) affirmed.
Held:
A registered agreement between employer and employed, under which the employed accepts a certain weekly payment in discharge of the employer’s liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 ‘until ended, diminished, increased, or redeemed’ by an order of the arbiter, is legal. Technically such an agreement cannot be terminated by the arbiter, though he may end permanently, and not merely temporarily, the payments.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Earl Loreburn), Lords Atkinson, Shaw, and Mersey

Citations:

[1912] UKHL 1020, 49 SLR 1020

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619232

Staveley Iron and Chemical Co Ltd v Jones: HL 1956

The court must avoid treating every risky act by an employee due to familiarity with the work or some inattention resulting from noise or strain as contributory negligence: ‘ . . in Factory Act cases the purpose of imposing the absolute obligation is to protect the workmen against those very acts of inattention which are sometimes relied upon as constituting contributory negligence so that too strict a standard would defeat the object of the statute.’ (Lord Tucker) The rule of ‘respondeat superior’ is merely a restatement of the rule ‘qui facit per alium facit per se’. The employee’s wrong is imputed to the employer.

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Tucker

Citations:

[1956] AC 627

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
CitedCommissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment
The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Health and Safety

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.214672

Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell: HL 6 Jul 1964

The respondent was employed as a shot firer in a quarry, and was to test the electric wiring connecting explosive charges. Contrary to instructions that testing must be done from a shelter, the respondent and another shot firer carried out a test in the open and they were both injured.
Held: The employer’s appeal succeeded. Where two fellow-servants combined to disobey an order deliberately though they knew the risk involved, a plea of volenti non fit injuria was a complete defence if the employer was not himself at fault and was only liable vicariously for the acts of the fellow servant. The House emphasised the distinction between lack of care for one’s own safety and the true acceptance of risk. A plaintiff’s conduct cannot be described as voluntary unless he truly had a free choice.
The House considered the origins of the doctrine of vicarious liability: ‘The doctrine of vicarious liability has not grown from any very clear, logical or legal principle but from social convenience and rough justice’, and ‘an employer who is himself at fault in persistently refusing to comply with a statutory rule could not possibly be allowed to escape liability because the injured workman had agreed to waive the breach.’
Lord Reid said that though ‘. . an employer who is himself at fault in persistently refusing to comply with a statutory rule could not possibly be allowed to escape liability because the injured workman had agreed to waive the breach.’, ‘It was argued that in this case it has not been shown that George [Shatwell] had a full appreciation of the risk. In my view it must be held that he had. He knew that those better qualified than he was took the risk seriously. He knew that his employers had forbidden this practice and that it had then been prohibited by statutory regulation. And he knew that his employers were taking strong measures to see that the order was obeyed. If he did not choose to believe what he was told I do not think that he could for that reason say that he did not fully appreciate the risk. He knew that the risk was that a charge would explode during testing, and no shot firer could be in any doubt about the possible consequences of that.’
Lord Pearce: ‘The doctrine of vicarious liability has not grown from any very clear, logical or legal principle but from social convenience and rough justice’. And ‘I am not persuaded that there is any reason of principle or policy which can be of substantial guidance in the resolution of the problem of applying the rule in any particular case. Theory may well justify the existence of the concept, but it is hard to find guidance from any underlying principle which will weigh in the decision whether in a particular case a particular wrongful act by the employee should or should not be regarded as falling within the scope of the employment.’
and ‘Since contributory negligence has ceased to be a total defence and it has become possible to produce a fair result by apportionment, the reluctance to find the total defence of volenti non fit injuria became more marked …’
and ‘Where Parliament has laid down that certain precautions shall be taken by the master to protect his workman, the master is not and should not be entitled to neglect those precautions and then rely on an expressed or implied agreement between himself and the workman that the latter, if injured as a result of the neglect, will bear the loss alone.’
Viscount Radcliffe: ‘These considerations apart, there are involved in this case questions as to the application of the maxim volenti non fit injuria and as to the principle that in the eyes of the law a man cannot be treated as having disavowed a statutory protection enacted for his benefit in the public interest. On these points, I have had the opportunity of studying in advance the opinions of your Lordships, and I wish to associate myself in particular with the opinion to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Pearce. I do think it of great importance that the law should not in general allow a person to disqualify himself from the protection of a statutory duty imposed for his benefit, where there is any element of public advantage in upholding the duty. But I do not think that this is a case in which that principle applies.’ and
‘My Lords, it helps sometimes to assess the merits of a decision if one starts by noticing its results and only after doing that allots to it the legal principles upon which it is said to depend.’
Lord Hodson said that a plaintiff’s conduct cannot be described as voluntary unless he truly had a free choice.

Judges:

Lord Pearce, Lord Hodson, Viscount Radcliffe

Citations:

[1964] 2 All ER 999, [1964] UKHL 2, [1965] AC 656

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedYarmouth v France CA 11-Aug-1887
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to drive carts. He objected that the horse had a vicious nature, but was obliged to drive it in any event. The horse kicked him.
Held: For the purposes of the 1880 Act, the plaintiff was an employee, . .

Cited by:

CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
CitedMcTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
CitedCommissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment
The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
CitedWhite v Blackmore CA 15-Jun-1972
The plaintiff attended a jalopy car race and was injured. It was a condition of his entry that he agreed that motor racing was dangerous and that he would not hold the organisers or others responsible if injured. He was injured when a safety rope, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Health and Safety

Leading Case

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.189975

Black v The Fife Coal Co, Ltd: SCS 24 Nov 1908

Citations:

[1908] SLR 191

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedCampbell v Gordon SC 6-Jul-2016
The employee was injured at work, but in a way excluded from the employers insurance cover. He now sought to make the sole company director liable, hoping in term to take action against the director’s insurance brokers for negligence, the director . .
At SCSButler (or Black) v Fife Coal Co, Ltd HL 19-Dec-1911
The court considered whether a civil remedy existed for breach of statutory duty. Lord Kinnear said: ‘If the duty be established, I do not think there is any serious question as to civil liability. There is no reasonable ground for maintaining that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.610812

Grizzly Tools v Commission: ECFI 3 May 2018

(Judgment) Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers – Directive 2006/42 / EC – Safeguard clause – National measure prohibiting the placing on the market of a pressure washer – Essential health and safety requirements – Commission decision declaring the measure justified – Obligation to state reasons – Equality of treatment

Citations:

ECLI: EU: T: 2018: 246, [2018] EUECJ T-168/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Health and Safety

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609510

Castro v Mutua Umivale and Others: ECJ 26 Apr 2018

Social Policy – Protection of Safety and Health of Workers – Opinion – Social policy – Protection of safety and health of workers – Directive 92/85/EEC – Article 7 – whether ‘night work’ covers shift work where the worker concerned performs her duties during the night – Worker who is breastfeeding – Assessment of working conditions challenged by the worker concerned – Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC – Burden of proof – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of sex

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:289, [2018] EUECJ C-41/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Health and Safety, Discrimination

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609310

Heeds v Cleveland Police and Another: QBD 18 Apr 2018

Judges:

Jeremy Baker J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 810 (QB), [2018] WLR(D) 226

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609114

Podila and Others: ECJ 21 Mar 2018

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 89/391 / EEC – Safety and health of workers at work – Classification as a place of work exposing workers to special or special conditions – Assessment of risks to safety and health at work – Obligations of the employer

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:203, C-133/17, [2018] EUECJ C-133/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Health and Safety

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.608614

Regina v Croydon Justices, ex parte W H Smith Ltd: QBD 22 Nov 2000

The power to institute proceedings for a breach of the Act lay in the inspector, and he could not delegate it. The Act was explicit in its requirements as to who could issue proceedings. The informations were not laid when the inspector requested a local authority solicitor to issue them, and there was nothing to justify any inference of a power to delegate.

Citations:

Gazette 30-Nov-2000, Times 22-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 38

Health and Safety, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88431

Regina v British Steel Plc: CACD 31 Dec 1994

British Steel employed two sub-contractors to work in moving a steel tower under their supervision. One platform fell on one of the sub-contractors, killing him. British Steel claimed they had delegated their responsibilities under the Act, and were not criminally liable.
Held: A corporate employer cannot evade the strict liability imposed by the legislation by delegation of its responsibilities. Subject to the defence of having done what was reasonably practical, which meant only the measures necessary to avert risks, the section created an absolute offence, to which there was no defence that the ‘directing mind’ at senior level had taken all reasonable care to delegate responsibility to a competent and responsible person. The offence created by section 3 is subject to the reasonably practicable defence, which is for a defendant to prove on a balance of probabilities ‘that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty . . or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement.’

Citations:

Times 31-Dec-1994, [1995] IRLR 310, [1995] ICR 586, [1995] 1 WLR 1356

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ConsideredTesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass HL 31-Mar-1971
Identification of Company’s Directing Mind
In a prosecution under the 1968 Act, the court discussed how to identify the directing mind and will of a company, and whether employees remained liable when proper instructions had been given to those in charge of a local store.
Held: ‘In the . .
AppliedRegina v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum CA 26-May-1993
The appellants were convicted of failing to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, persons not in their employment were not exposed to risks to their health and safety. One of their buildings . .
AppliedRegina v Associated Octel Ltd CACD 3-Aug-1994
The company was said to have failed in its duties under section 3(1) of the 1974 Act.
Held: The maintenance and cleaning of a company’s premises can be part of its undertaking, for which its managers are criminally responsible, even if outside . .

Cited by:

CitedHampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
CitedFerguson v British Gas Trading Ltd CA 10-Feb-2009
Harassment to Criminal Level needed to Convict
The claimant had been a customer of the defendant, but had moved to another supplier. She was then subjected to a constant stream of threatening letters which she could not stop despite re-assurances and complaints. The defendant now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86213

Rae (Agnes) v Glasgow City Council and Another: OHCS 22 Apr 1997

An employer may be liable for damages for passive smoking if the claim is pleaded correctly.

Citations:

Times 22-Apr-1997

Statutes:

Offices Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 7

Environment, Employment, Health and Safety, Negligence

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85639