swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Health and Safety - From: 1960 To: 1969
This page lists 15 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Nash v Parkinson Cowan Ltd; 1961 - (1961) 105 S J 323
Close v Steel Company of Wales Ltd [1962] AC 367
1962
Lord Denning
Health and Safety, Scotland, Constitutional
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."
1 Cites
1 Citers
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol and Co Ltd; HL 1962 - [1962] 1 WLR 295; 1962 SC (HL) 70
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol and Co Ltd [1961] UKHL 8; 1962 SLT 121; 1962 SC (HL) 70; [1962] 1 WLR 295
21 Feb 1962
HL
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
[ Bailii ]
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol and Company Ltd [1962] UKHL 3; [1962] 1 WLR 295; [1962] 1 All ER 623; [1961] UKHL 8; 1962 SLT 121; 1962 SC (HL) 70
21 Feb 1962
HL
Lord Chancellor, Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Devlin
Negligence, Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Damages were sought after the death of the pursuer's husband working for the respondent. The trial judge had been satisfied that even if the defendants had performed their duty at common law and pursuant to statute, and had provided the deceased steel erector with a safety harness, he would not have worn it, even working 70ft above ground, and he therefore suffered no loss as a consequence of the breach of duty complained of. Held: The claim failed. The House, applying the "but for" test held that the breach of duty did not cause his death. Once the employer is shown to be in breach of duty to provide equipment, the assumption is that it would have been used, because a reasonable employee would use it, unless the employer proves otherwise.
Lord Reid said: "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".
Factories Act 1937
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Wigley v British Vinegars Ltd; HL 1964 - [1964] AC 307
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell; HL 6-Jul-1964 - [1964] 2 All ER 999; [1965] AC 656; [1964] UKHL 2
Uddin v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd; CA 1965 - [1965] 2 QB 582; [1965] 2 All ER 213; [1965] 2 WLR 1183
Kelly v Pierhead Ltd; 1967 - [1967] 1 WLR 65; [1967] 1 All ER 657
Paramor v Dover Harbour Board; 1967 - [1967] 2 Lloyd's Rep 107
Smith (formerly Westwood) v National Coal Board [1967] 1 WLR 871
1967
HL
Lord Reid
Health and Safety
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."
1 Citers
McArdle v Admac Roofing Co and Others [1967] 1 All ER 583
1967
Health and Safety, Negligence
1 Citers
Nimmo v Alexander Cowan and Sons Ltd 1967 SC (HL) 79; [1968] AC 107
1967
HL
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Guest, Lord Upjohn
Scotland, Health and Safety
The employer was prosecuted under the 1961 Act. Held: the burden of proving that it was not reasonably practicable to make and keep a place of work safe rested upon the defendant employer. If an exception was to be established, it was for the party claiming the exception to establish it. (Majority) Where a linguistic construction of the statute could not clearly indicate upon whom the burden should lie the court should look to other considerations to determine the intention of Parliament such as the mischief at which the Act was aimed and practical considerations affecting the burden of proof and, in particular, the ease or difficulty that the respective parties would encounter in discharging the burden.
Lord Wilberforce: "the orthodox principle (common to both the criminal and the civil law) that exceptions, etc., are to be set up by those who rely on them."
Factories Act 1961 29(1) - Mines and Quarries Act 1954 48(1)
1 Citers
Stokes v Guest Keen and Nettlefold (Nuts and Bolts) Ltd; QBD 1968 - [1968] 1 WLR 1776
Liptrot v British Railways Board [1969] 1 AC 136
1969
HL
Health and Safety
1 Citers