|
||
Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions |
swarb.co.uk - law indexThese 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: 1985 To: 1989This page lists 5 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018. McDermid v Nash Dredging and Reclamation Co Ltd [1986] 3 WLR 45; [1986] 2 All ER 676 CA; [1986] QB 965; [1986] UKHL 5 2 Jul 1986 HL Lord Brandon Employment, Health and Safety The Court explained the duty of an employer towards his employees as regards their safety: "an employer owes to his employee a duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the system of work provided for him is a safe one. Secondly, a provision of a safe system of work has two aspects: (a) the devising of such a system and (b) the operation of it. Thirdly, the duty concerned has been described alternatively as either personal or non-delegable. The meaning of these expressions is not self-evident and needs explaining. The essential characteristic of the duty is that if it is not performed it is no defence for the employer to show that he delegated his performance to a person, whether his servant or not his servant, whom he reasonably believed to be competent to perform it. Despite such delegation the employer is liable for the non-performance of the duty." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Regina v Mara [1987] 1 WLR 87 1987 CA Parker L.J Health and Safety The court considered whether the cleaning of a factory constituted part of its undertaking. Held: "A factory, for example, may shut down on Saturdays and Sundays for manufacturing purposes, but the employer may have the premises cleaned by a contractor over the weekend. If the contractor's employees are exposed to risks to health or safety because machinery is left insecure, or vats containing noxious substances are left unfenced, it is, in our judgment, clear that the factory owner is in breach of his duty under section 3(1). The way in which he conducts his undertaking is to close his factory for manufacturing purposes over the weekend and to have it cleaned during the shut down period. It would clearly be reasonably practicable to secure machinery and noxious vats, and on the plain wording of the section he would be in breach of his duty if he failed to do so." Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 1 Citers Nurse v Morganite Crucible Ltd; HL 1989 - [1989] AC 692; [1989] 1 All ER 113 Taylor v Fazakerley Engineering Co Unreported, 26 May 1989 26 May 1989 Rose J Health and Safety 1 Citers Salvatore Grimaldi v Fonds Des Maladies Professionnelles. (Preliminary Rulings) R-322/88; [1989] EUECJ R-322/88 13 Dec 1989 ECJ Health and Safety Social policy - Occupational diseases - Effects of a recommendation. [ Bailii ] |
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. |