Category: Health and Safety

Dugmore 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 shall ensure that the exposure of his employee to a substance hazardous to health is either prevented, or where this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled.’ The words were clear. The duty was absolute except for reasonable practicality, when the duty was simply to ensure adequate protection. There was no limitation on the second limb to allow for relative risk, or reasonable practicality.

Judges:

Tuckey, Hale, LJJ, Sir Denis Hale

Citations:

Times 09-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1689

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 (1988 No 1657), Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 (1994 No 3246), Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999 (1999 No 437) 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Stokes v Guest Keen and Nettlefold (Nuts and Bolts) Ltd QBD 1968
An employee had been exposed at work over a long period to mineral oil which, on a daily basis, had saturated his clothing and come into contact with his skin. As a result of this he developed cancer of the scrotum from which he eventually died. The . .
Cited – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178361

O’Neill v DSG Retail Ltd: CA 31 Jul 2002

The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages after he was injured at work. He claimed he had been asked to work in breach of the Regulations.
Held: It was easy but wrong to conflate the issues of causation and forseeability. The judge had so erred. The issue of causation should be tested only once the question of whether there had been a breach of the Regulations, had first been answered. The Regulations asked about tasks performed regularly. This was not a question about each particular lifting task, but about each kind of task. The employers were required to do what was necessary to reduce the risk to the lowest practicable level.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Chadwick and Mr Justice Nelson

Citations:

Times 09-Sep-2002, Gazette 17-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1139, [2003] ICR 222

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 2793) 4(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Koonjul v Thameslink Healthcare Services 19-May-2000
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Cox v Ministry of Justice CA 19-Feb-2014
Appeal against rejection of claim for personal injury. While working as the catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, the Claimant was injured in an accident caused by the negligence of a prisoner carrying out paid work under her supervision. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175057

Coxall v Goodyear Great Britain Limited: CA 22 Jul 2002

The employee worked at a plant using chemicals. After starting, the work system was changed. The staff were given the best protection available, but the claimant suffered a pre-existing tendency to asthma, which was excited by the chemicals used. He was awarded damages, and the employer appealed.
Held: The employer should have been alerted by a doctor’s memorandum about his condition. It was not for the employee alone to assess the risk. Following Withers, the employer could be under a duty to make an assessment which would lead them to conclude that given his personal sensitivity, and employee should be dismissed from working in an otherwise safe environment.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Brooke

Citations:

Times 05-Aug-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1010

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Considered – Withers v Perry Chain Co Ltd CA 21-Jul-1961
An employee with dermatitis returned to work when it was known both to him and his employers that continuing to work would carry a small risk of it recurring or being exacerbated.
Held: The Court allowed the employer’s appeal against the trial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174346

Davis and Another v Balfour Kilpatrick Ltd and others: CA 23 May 2002

The claimants sought damages for sickness they claimed arose from exposure to radiation when erecting radio transmitter masts. The risk had been recognised, and a safety assessment undertaken and adjustments made to the transmitter power before work began, to reduce the levels below those recommended by the NRPB. The judge did not find evidence of exposure to excess levels, but failed to make a finding as to causation. He dismissed the claim.
Held: There was no obligation on a judge to make a finding on every averment. Some common sense must be applied. There were no grounds for challenging the judge’s assessment of the evidence. Riggers on transmission masts work in an environment where they are exposed to unknown dangers, because scientific knowledge is incomplete. Human rights issues were raised because one of the operators of the mast was a public body, the BBC. Nevertheless this point had arisen only on appeal, and the judge could not be criticised for failing to develop creative points.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Tuckey And Mr Justice Jackson

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 736

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd TCC 10-Jul-2001
. .
Doubted – Read v J Lyons and Co Ltd HL 1946
The plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Defence, inspecting a weapons factory. A shell exploded injuring her. No negligence was alleged. The company worked as agent for the ministry.
Held: The respondents were not liable, since there had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury, Human Rights

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172239

English v North Lanarkshire Council: SCS 22 Jan 1999

The application of the phrase ‘work equipment’ is to protect the workman using such equipment. This might embrace routine maintenance or cleaning or even minor repairing while the machine is operating. The 1998 Regulations should not be interpreted narrowly and in a way which would fail to implement the Framework Directive.

Judges:

Lord Reed

Citations:

[1999] ScotCS 29, 1999 SCLR 310

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Statutes:

Work Equipment Directive (Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

Cited by:

Cited – Munro v Aberdeen City Council SCS 17-Sep-2009
Safety Duty on Employer was not Absolute
The pursuer was injured slipping on ice in her defender employer’s car park. Liability depended on the interpretation of regulation 5, the claimant saying that it imposed an absolute requirement to maintain the workplace in efficient working order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Health and Safety, European

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.169690

Volex Group Plc v Jane Wilson Evans: CA 27 Feb 2002

The claimant sought damages after she breathed noxious fumes at her place of work. It was said that she had been told that she could leave her machine to get fresh air as she wished, but the judge had found that she had not appreciated that this was intended to mean that she need not face the fumes at all.
Held: The nature of the fumes had not been established, and the cause of the illness had not been established. Accordingly the liability of the employers could not be established. The employer’s appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann Lord Justice Chadwick And Sir Christopher Staughton

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 225

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167960

Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany C-5/00: ECJ 7 Feb 2002

Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – -Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work – Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) – Employer’s duty to keep documents containing an assessment of the risks to safety and health at work.

Citations:

[2002] EUECJ C-5/00

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 89/391/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Health and Safety

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167656

Kerr v North Ayrshire Council: SCS 16 Jan 2002

The claimant sought damages for personal injuries after injuring her back at work as a caretaker. She alleged a failure to provide a safe system of work. She was asked to move folding tables weighing up to 30lbs. They were to be stored vertically. She hurt her back lifting one from the vertical to a horizontal axis. No training had been given in how the tables were to be moved.
Held: A breach of the duty to make an assessment does not in itself gives rise to liability in damages. The steps proposed to reduce the risk were not practicable in the circumstances, and the claim failed.

Judges:

Lady Smith

Citations:

[2002] ScotCS 13

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2793)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167453

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88431

United Kingdom v Council of the European Union: ECJ 12 Nov 1996

A directive limiting the maximum work hours for all employees was validly made under art 118a as a Health and Safety measure.
LMA

  1. Measures appear initially to have derived from policies of job creation and increased employment.
  2. John Major’s government saw the initiatives (together with other provisions as part of Social Chapter) as measures which would lead to unemployment and expected an unsympathetic response from business organisations.
  3. Government opt-out of Social Chapter of Maastricht Treaty (TEU)
  4. Working Time Directive introduced some of provisions of Social Chapter in the guise of health and safety. The measures were adopted as a health and safety measure on the basis of Art.118a EC

What were the implications of this route to adoption?
Art.118aEC
(Council) Qualified majority voting – (European Parliament) Co-operation procedure – although the Council ultimately has the final say, it can only over-rule Parliament (and the Commission) if it acts unanimously) as opposed to
Art.100EC – (Council) unanimous voting – (European Parliament) Consultation procedure – this procedure requires that the Council consult the Parliament before it adopts an act. Parliament’s views must be considered but have no binding effect.
The UK challenged the Directive on various grounds

  1. Defective legal basis (lack of competence)
  2. Breach of the principle of proportionality
  3. Misuse of powers
  4. Infringement of an essential procedural requirements.

The ECJ concluded that the UK’s application was unfounded apart from one provision The ECJ annulled the second sentence of Art. 5 of the Council Directive concerning minimum rest periods to include Sundays – could not be justified on basis of health and safety measure. The ECJ dismissed the remainder of the UK’s application.

Citations:

Times 21-Nov-1996, C-84/94, [1997] IRLR 30, [1996] EUECJ C-84/94, [1997] ICR 443

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Treaty Article 118a

Cited by:

Cited – Revenue and Customs v Stringer, Ainsworth and Others HL 10-Jun-2009
In each case, the employee had retired after long term sickness. The Employment tribunal had upheld their ability to claim arrears of sickness pay arising under the 1998 Regulations, as an unlawful deduction from their wages. They now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Employment, Health and Safety

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161312

Reynolds 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 had said that helmets were available, and recommended. The claimant said there had been no mention of helmets in the introduction to the race, though he was experienced as a cyclist.
Held: The activity could not fairly be described as having been within the claimant’s course of employment. Nevertheless one could not simply ignore the employment relationship, and a comparable duty of care arose. No sufficient risk assessment had been carried out.
The course providers would have insisted than any member of the public contracting with them should wear a helmet. Moreover: ‘It was argued that, because the claimant was an experienced cyclist, he could, had he wished, have chosen to use a helmet, and the fact that he did not supports a conclusion that he would not have complied with any requirement. I do not accept that argument. If the defendant had required the wearing of helmets and some of the staff refused to wear them, then they would, quite simply, and in accordance with the assessment they should have made, have excluded them from the bicycle racing activity.’
Nevertheless the claimant was contributorily negligent. Other riders wore helmets, they were clearly on view, and he could have requested one.
As to the apportionment of liability: ‘, it is not simply a matter of assessing the comparative blameworthiness of the parties, but of their respective responsibility for the damage, particularly bearing in mind the defendant’s duty of care involved, on my findings, taking precautions against the claimant’s own negligence. That needs to be weighed against the fact that the claimant’s fault was causative of the injury he suffered. In the final analysis, I need to assess both relative blameworthiness and causative potency of the parties’ respective faults. In my judgment, given my findings as to the claimant’s responsibility for the collision, he must accept the greater proportion of blame. In these circumstances, in my judgment, a fair apportionment of liability is two thirds/one third in favour of the defendant.’

Judges:

Oliver-Jones QC

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2263 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 52, Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 3(2)(e)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Froom v Butcher CA 21-Jul-1975
The court asked what reduction if any should be made to a plaintiff’s damages where injuries were caused not only by the defendant’s negligent driving but also by the failure of the plaintiff to wear a seat belt. It had been submitted that, since . .
Cited – Dubai 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 . .
Cited – SO v Hsbc Bank Plc and Another CA 3-Apr-2009
Etherton LJ held that ultimately the decision as to whether there is vicarious liability ‘is a conclusion of law based on primary facts rather than a simple question of fact’. . .
Cited – Smith v Finch QBD 22-Jan-2009
The claimant cyclist was severely injured in an accident when hit by a motorcyclist, the defendant. He was not wearing a cycle helmet, and the injuries were to his head. He was slowing down to turn right, and was hit a heavy glancing blow by the . .
Cited – Ilkiw v Samuels CA 1963
The plaintiff was injured by the careless manouvering of a lorry by the defendant’s employee.
Held: When considering the vicarious liability of an employer, the proper approach to the nature of the servant’s employment is a broad one. . .
Cited – Lister 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 . .
Cited – Ilkiw v Samuels CA 1963
The plaintiff was injured by the careless manouvering of a lorry by the defendant’s employee.
Held: When considering the vicarious liability of an employer, the proper approach to the nature of the servant’s employment is a broad one. . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v Radclyffe CA 30-Jun-2009
The court held the appellant Ministry liable for a soldier’s injuries incurred when jumping from a high bridge. A senior officer had earlier ‘assumed responsibility to prevent the junior soldiers from taking undue risks of which he was or ought to . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Health and Safety, Vicarious Liability, Employment

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.464218

Chief Adjudication Officer v Faulds (Scotland): HL 11 May 2000

A claim for industrial injuries benefit must be related to an identifiable accident. Where the injury, being psychological, arose from exposure to a multiple of serious accidents, and no particular one or identified series, could properly be said to be the cause of the injury, the benefit was not payable. The distinction is between an accident and a process.

Citations:

Gazette 31-May-2000, Times 16-May-2000, [2000] 2 All ER 961, [2000] UKHL 26, [2000] 1 WLR 1035

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 94(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Scotland, Benefits

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159060

Regina v Francois Pierre Marcellin Thoron: CACD 30 Jul 2001

The appellant had been convicted that as a haulage contractor he had conspired with his drivers to cause them to drive beyond the permitted hours, and in other ways contrary to their safety. He argued it was a misuse of the Act to ally it with the more severe Transport Act regime. That appeal was rejected, since the Act clearly envisaged such prosecutions and use outside the workplace. Objections had also been taken to two jurors. Both were rejected, and the case had been heard before the Human Rights Act had come into effect.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Crim 1797

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2(1), Transport Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Health and Safety

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158783

Regina 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. The acetone was in a bucket retreived from a refuse bin. While applying the acetone, the light bulb broke, and the acetone vapour exploded burning him.
Held: Whether a company was conducting an undertaking as against non-employees is always a question of the facts of the case. The sole issue was whether the fact that RGP were independent contractors took the work outside the scope of Octel’s undertaking. Having correctly ruled that it did not, the judge assumed that the matter was no longer in issue. But there remained a question of fact which it was strictly speaking for the jury to decide. Despite the error it was difficult to see what evidence could have been brought to exonerate the company, and the proviso was applied.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Mustill, Lord Hoffmann

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-1996, [1996] UKHL 1, [1996] ICR 972, [1996] 4 All ER 846, [1996] 1 WLR 1543, [1997] Crim LR 355, [1997] IRLR 123

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1984 1 3(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Doubted – 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 . .
Cited – Austin 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Applied – Stirland v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1944
The House considered what was the appropriate test for allowing a conviction to stand despite the finding of an irregularity in the trial.
Held: The House must be satisfied that there was ‘a situation a reasonable jury, after being properly . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Stonehouse HL 1977
The defendant had been charged with attempting to obtain property by deception by fabricating his death by drowning in the sea off Miami in Florida. The final act alleged to constitute the offence occurred outside the jurisdiction of the English . .

Cited by:

Cited – Evans Dorothy, Regina v CACD 6-Dec-2004
The defendant appealed her conviction for having breached a restraining order under the 1997 Act. The order required her not to be ‘abusive by words or actions’ towards her neighbour. She had regularly parked her car so as to block her neighbour’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158869

Shell Tankers UK Limited v Jeromson; The Cherry Tree Machine Company Limited, Shell Tankers UK Limited v Dawson: CA 2 Feb 2001

The claimant’s husband had been employed as an apprentice fitter in a factory which manufactured dry cleaners’ presses. For two years, it was part of his job to mix asbestos flock with water in a bucket and then apply it to the plattens of a press in order to seal them to stop the steam escaping. He was therefore mixing the asbestos as part of the process of manufacturing a product containing asbestos.
Held: The 1931 Regulations were not limited in their application so as to exclude factory processes or products using raw asbestos. The rules applied to any industrial process involving the manipulation of asbestos, and the claim succeeded. The exemption for occasional use with only little exposure. Substantial exposure to asbestos dust created a known and foreseeable risk of injury.
Disapproving Watt v Fairfield, Hale LJ said: ‘It is however very difficult to imagine a factory or workshop whose main business was producing asbestos or asbestos products to which the exemption could possibly apply, given that only certain processes, infrequently carried on, are exempted and only then if none of the other defined processes is carried on in the same factory.’

Judges:

Hale, Mantell LJJ, Cresswell J

Citations:

Times 02-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 101, [2001] ICR 1223, [2001] PIQR P19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 (1931 No 1140)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Disapproved – Watt v Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company Limited and Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Ltd and Energy and Marine (Weirside) Limited SCS 3-Nov-1998
The pursuer sought reparation against three former shipbuilders. He had developed extensive bilateral pleural plaques and asbestosis.
Held: Lord Gill felt that it was possible to give the proviso a satisfactory meaning, notwithstanding his . .

Cited by:

Cited – McDonald 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: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147424

King v RCO Support Services Limited and Yorkshire Traction Company Limited: CA 8 Dec 2000

The appellant was employed by the first respondents as a steam cleaning operative. The first respondent had contracted to supply cleaning services to the second respondent at one of the second respondent’s yards, where buses were cleaned. The appellant’s place of employment was at that yard. The yard was iced and despite attempts to grit the ice, he slipped and was injured. His claim had been dismissed because he had not been engaged in operations at the time.
Held: The task of moving the grit was itself a handling process. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Henry And Lord Justice Kay

Citations:

Times 07-Feb-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 314

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 4(1)(a), Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 12(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lonsdale v Howard and Hallam Ltd CA 8-Feb-2006
The claimant sought damages after his agency with the defendants was terminated. The central issue was whether compensation was to be calculated at two years commission as derived from French practice or otherwise.
Held: ‘there is no clear . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147347

Casey v Morane Limited: CA 5 May 2000

An employee suffered injuries at work for which he was adjudged 15% responsible and the company 85%. Because of the accident he was demoted and suffered loss of earnings. He claimed that loss of earnings in his action for damages. The court found that the company should pay the damages. The company was itself predominantly responsible for the damage caused, and these losses flowed directly from the accident.

Citations:

Gazette 25-May-2000, Times 10-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 147

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147180

Joseph Smith (Pauper) v Charles Baker and Sons: HL 21 Jul 1891

Judges:

Lord Halsbury LC

Citations:

[1891] UKHL 2, [1891] AC 325

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Yarmouth 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:

Cited – Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA 13-Nov-2009
The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.263829

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)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Health and Safety

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.78474

Langridge, Canterbury City Council v Howletts and Port Lympne Estates: Admn 27 Nov 1996

The company appealed against a prohibition notice with regard to its operation of a zoo. A keeper had been attacked by tigers while they were being fed. He had died. The company appealed the terms of the notices, saying that the Act had to allow for the idiosyncracies of the particular business. The company sought particularly to establish social contact between keepers and their animals. The real issue was whether the company could properly allow an employee to enter the tigers’ enclosure. The code of practice required keepers not to enter the enclosure.
Held: The safety legislation cannot be used to specify what work can be done, only the manner in which it was to be done: ‘although in the ordinary way a dangerous piece of machinery must be securely fenced, there may be circumstances concerned with the particular task that the employer (or his employee) is doing (their work) which make it necessary that the activity, which would by any ordinary standards be regarded as dangerous, may nevertheless have a legitimacy which justifies it but which would otherwise have laid the employer open to proceedings for a breach of his statutory duty.’ and ‘The Act is not seeking to legislate as to what work could or could not be performed, but is properly concerned with the manner of its doing. ‘

Citations:

Times 13-Dec-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 282

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2

Citing:

Cited – Coltness Iron Co v Sharp HL 1938
The court considered the extent of the duty of care owed by an employer to its employees under the Act: (Atkin) ‘In the facts of this case where the dangerous machinery was exposed for only a few minutes as the only means of effecting necessary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Animals, Licensing

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136830

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 from – Rothwell 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 instance – Johnston 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:

Cited – Takoushis, 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 . .
Cited – Middleton, 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.
Cited – Foster 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. . .
Cited – Parochial 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:

Cited – Johnson 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 from – 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. . .
See Also – ICI 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 to – 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. . .
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:

Cited – EH 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

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:

Cited – Trent 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

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:

Cited – British 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

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:

Cited – EH 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

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:

Cited – Robb 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

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:

Cited – Majrowski 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:

Cited – Regina 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:

Cited – Baker 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:

Cited – Baker 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:

Cited – Baker 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:

Cited – Baker 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:

Cited – Spencer-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:

Cited – Robb 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

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:

Cited – McDonald 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:

Cited – McDonald 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:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – McDonald 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 . .
Explained – Owen 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

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:

Cited – McDonald 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

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 Trial – 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 . .
At Court of Appeal – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cockbill 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:

Cited – Baker 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:

Cited – Baker 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:

Cited – Baker 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 from – 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 . .
Cited – Tomlinson 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:

Cited – Reynolds 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 Appeal – 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 . .
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 from – 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 . .
First Trial – 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 . .
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:

Cited – Robb 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:

Cited – Edwards 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-applied – W 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:

Cited – Amnesty 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:

Cited – Spencer-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:

Cited – Hawley 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:

Cited – Transco 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:

Cited – Dubai 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 . .
Cited – Lister 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 . .
Cited – Canadian 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 . .
Cited – Rose 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:

Cited – McDonald 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:

Cited – Chargot 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:

Cited – Spencer-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 . .
Unhelpful – Knowles 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:

Cited – Caledonian 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, . .
Cited – Quinn 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:

Cited – Robb 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 . .
Cited – Smith, 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:

Cited – McDonald 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:

Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – McDonald 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:

Cited – Ferguson 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

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:

Cited – Baker 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:

Cited – Baker 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:

Cited – Baker 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

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:

Cited – Baker 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

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:

Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Chargot 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:

Cited – Marks 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. . .
Cited – Ellis 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:

Cited – 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 . .
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:

Cited – Bonnington 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:

Cited – Gregg 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 . .
Cited – McTear 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:

Cited – Salter 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 . .
Cited – Alcock 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 . .
Cited – Alcock 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 . .
Cited – Alcock 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 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:

Cited – Dugmore 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