Construction of Workmen Safety Statutes
The normal rule that penal statutes must be strictly construed has not been allowed to stand in the way of the protection given to the workman by the statutory language. The House considered the requirement under section 14(1) of the 1937 Act that ‘Every dangerous part of any machinery . . shall be securely fenced unless it is in such a position or of such construction as to be as safe to every person employed or working on the premises as it would be if securely fenced’, and had applied to the concept of dangerousness an approach dating back to Hindle v Birtwhistle [1897] 1 QB 192, namely that 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’, and that it was ‘impossible to say that because an accident had happened once therefore the machine was dangerous’. Lords Reid and Keith at pp 765-766 and 774 expressly endorsed the relevance of determining whether the degree of danger was such that there was ‘a reasonably foreseeable cause of injury’.
Lord Reid aid that an employer considering the use of dangerous equipment must allow for possible lapses by a workman.
Viscount Simonds said that it was elementary that it is necessary to consider not only the risk run by a skilled and careful man who never relaxes his vigilance.
Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid
[1955] AC 740, [1955] 1 All ER 870
Factories Act 1937 14(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc HL 1-Jul-2004
The claimant was employed as a milk truck driver. He was issued with a pair of boots capped to protect his feet from impact. In a snowstorm, and against company advice, he sough to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite. He . .
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 – 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 – 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, Negligence
Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.198670
