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: 1970 To: 1979
This page lists 5 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Robertson v RB Cowe and Co 1970 SLT 122
1970
Lord Migdale, Lord Guthrie, Lord President Clyde
Scotland, Health and Safety
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.
1 Citers
Rogers v George Blair [1971] 11 KIR 391
1971
Salmon LJ
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
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.
1 Citers
Haigh v Charles W Ireland Ltd 1974 SC (HL) 1
1974
HL
Lord Diplock
Health and Safety
1 Citers
Evans v Sant [1975] QB 626
1975
QBD
Lord Widgery CJ, Bridge and Shaw JJ
Health and Safety, Crime
In the course of laying a water-main, a test-head was attached between the pipe and a pump to test the water pressure, but it was insecurely fitted and, as pressure built up, it blew off, causing the death of a workman who ran into the path of a passing car. Held: On a case stated by magistrates after conviction, the defendant's appeal was allowed. The guiding light in the court's approach was that: "in deciding whether the place of work was made safe, it is the place qua place that we look at, and not the place qua operation carried on upon the place." Lord Widgery CJ continued to say: "That does not mean of course that in deciding whether the place is made safe one has total disregard for the activities which go on in the place itself. The safety of the place depends not simply on the construction of the floor or the solidity of the walls, but it also depends in some degree upon the nature of the operations carried on therein. In so far as there is permanent equipment in the place, then its safety can in my judgment reflect on the safety of the place. In so far as there are activities carried on in the place which are constant, regular and recurring, I can well see that they may have their impact on the question of whether the place has been made safe." and "Where, as in the present case, you start with a place safe in every degree, and the only thing which renders it unsafe is the fact that equipment brought upon it for a particular operation, and being used for a particular operation on a particular day, produces an element of danger, it seems to me that that is not enough to justify the allegation, certainly in criminal proceedings, that the place itself has not been made safe."
1 Citers
Wotherspoon v HM Advocate (1978) JC 74
1978
Lord Justice General Emslie
Scotland, Health and Safety
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.
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 37(4)
1 Citers
