The Commission sought a declaration that, by restricting the duty of employers to care for the health and safety of their employees ‘so far as reasonably practicable’, the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its obligations under article 5(1) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers.
Held: Article 5(1) simply embodied the general duty of safety to which the employer is subject, without specifying any form of liability and that it was not to be read as requiring the imposition of no-fault liability. The Commission had not shown how the reasonable practicability defence in section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 offended against the requirements of the Directive.
Citations:
Times 25-Jun-2007, C-127/05, [2007] EUECJ C-127/05, [2007] IRLR 720, [2007] ICR 1393
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
European
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 . .
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.
Health and Safety
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.247911