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 repairs in a part of the mine where it was unlikely that any workman would be exposed to risk of contact with the machine other than the engineer engaged in the work of repair, I am unable to take the view that it was reasonably practicable by any means to avoid or prevent the breach’ and (Lord Macmillan) ‘It was not only not reasonably practicable to keep the gearing securely fenced when it had to be observed on the test run, but it would have been impossible to have observed its working if it had been protected by the guard . . (and) if you prevent anyone going near a machine then of course you prevent the possibility of anyone being injured by it. But employees must have access to mend them. ‘
References: [1938] AC 90
Judges: Lord Atkin, Lord Macmillan
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – 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 . .
(Times 13-Dec-96, , [1996] EWHC Admin 282)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192603
