Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 1994 To: 1994

This page lists 13 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Neill v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1996] SC 185; [1994] SLR 673
1994


Scotland, Health and Safety

1 Citers


 
Kinnear and Others v Falconfilms Nv and Others Times, 01 March 1994; [1994] EWHC QB 1; [1996] 1 WLR 920; [1994] 3 All ER 42; [1994] ILPr 731
27 Jan 1994
QBD
Phillips J
International, Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Jurisdiction
The actor Roy Kinnear died on being thrown from a horse while making a film in Spain. His widow sought damages from the fim company who in turn sought to issue a third party notice against those involved in Spain. Held: A third party claim with a sufficient nexus may bring a main claim with Brussels Convention.
[ Bailii ]
 
RMC Roadstone Products Ltd v Jester Times, 08 February 1994; [1994] 4 All ER 1037
8 Feb 1994
QBD
Smith J
Health and Safety
The employers engaged contractors to repair a building. The employers were going to buy new asbestos sheets for the purpose but the contractors offered to remove some from an adjacent disused factory. The employers obtained the permission of the owner. Their projects manager inspected the site with the contractors and warned them to be careful. They offered to supply the contractors with equipment. One of the contractors fell through a skylight on the roof of the disused building and was killed. The employers were charged under section 3(1) and the justices convicted. They said that it was not necessary for the employers to control the site on which the work was done to be liable. They were in a position to give specific instructions to the contractors as to how the work should be carried on. They therefore owed a duty under section 3(1). Held: The conviction was set aside. The court was "unable to accept that the mere capacity or opportunity to exercise control over an activity is enough to bring that activity within the ambit of the employer's conduct of his undertaking. Before he can say that an activity is within his conduct of his undertaking, the employer must, in my judgment, either exercise some actual control over it or be under a duty to do so. If the principal chooses to leave the independent contractor to do the work in the way he thinks fit, I consider that the work is not within the ambit of the principal's conduct of his undertaking. It is wholly the contractor's undertaking."
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)
1 Citers



 
 Edgson v Vickers Plc and Another; QBD 8-Apr-1994 - Times, 08 April 1994
 
Blackman v C J Pryor (Earth Moving Contractors) Ltd Times, 05 July 1994
5 Jul 1994
QBD

Health and Safety
Plant on floor of a pit was not covered by excavation regulations but only at the top.
Construction (General Provisions) Regulations 1961 (1961 No 1580)

 
Moualem v Carlisle City Council Times, 08 July 1994; Ind Summary, 25 July 1994
8 Jul 1994
QBD

Health and Safety
Equipment in non-domestic premises (an indoor nursery playground) is a plant within the Act, and the Local Authority may prosecute for a breach of the regulations.
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 4(1)(b)

 
Regina v Associated Octel Ltd Times, 03 August 1994; Gazette, 07 October 1994; Ind Summary, 29 August 1994; [1994] 4 All ER 1051
3 Aug 1994
CACD
Stuart-Smith LJ
Health and Safety
The company was said to have failed in its duties under section 3(1) of the 1974 Act. Held: The maintenance and cleaning of a company's premises can be part of its undertaking, for which its managers are criminally responsible, even if outside contractors were used.
Stuart-Smith LJ said: "If there is a risk of injury to the health and safety of the persons not employed by the employer, whether to the contractor's men or members of the public, and, a fortiori, if there is actual injury as a result of the conduct of that operation there is prima facie liability, subject to the defence of reasonable practicability."
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2 3(1)
1 Citers


 
Gerrard v Staffordshire Potteries Ltd [1994] EWCA Civ 31; [1995] PIQR 169; [1995] ICR 502
2 Nov 1994
CA

Personal Injury, Health and Safety
The plaintiff was injured when working for the defendants spraying glaze onto jars. A small foreign body was blown into her eye. She said that no eye protection had been suuplied as required by the regulations. Held. The plaintiff's appeal succeeded: "this was an operation which, when one looks at it in the round, carried with it a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury. One has only to imagine the comment of any eye surgeon if asked to watch this Plaintiff at work and asked to watch her putting her head into the booth in order to apply the glaze to the inside of the jar and then removing her head with perhaps some of the glaze adhering to her hair and complaining, as she did at times, of a gritty sensation in her eyes. "
Factories Act 1961 29(1) - Pottery (Health and Welfare) Special Regulations 1950 - Protection of Eyes Regulations 1974
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
King v Smith and Another Times, 03 November 1994
3 Nov 1994
QBD

Health and Safety
Window was to be cleaned from the inside where so designed, and not from the sill. Employer's were liable.

 
Woking Borough Council v BHS Plc Times, 04 November 1994
4 Nov 1994
QBD

Health and Safety
Shops have obligation to record and report accidents to customers not just employees.
Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations

 
Gunion v Roche Products Ltd Times, 04 November 1994
4 Nov 1994
OHCS

Health and Safety
A forklift truck can be 'place' within Act despite being moveable.
Factories Act 1961 29(1)


 
 Walker v Northumberland County Council; QBD 16-Nov-1994 - Times, 24 November 1994; Independent, 18 November 1994; [1995] 1 All ER 737; [1995] IRLR 35; [1995] ICR 702; [1994] EWHC QB 2; [1995] PIQR P521
 
Regina v British Steel Plc Times, 31 December 1994; [1995] IRLR 310; [1995] ICR 586; [1995] 1 WLR 1356
31 Dec 1994
CACD

Health and Safety
British Steel employed two sub-contractors to work in moving a steel tower under their supervision. One platform fell on one of the sub-contractors, killing him. British Steel claimed they had delegated their responsibilities under the Act, and were not criminally liable. Held: A corporate employer cannot evade the strict liability imposed by the legislation by delegation of its responsibilities. Subject to the defence of having done what was reasonably practical, which meant only the measures necessary to avert risks, the section created an absolute offence, to which there was no defence that the 'directing mind' at senior level had taken all reasonable care to delegate responsibillity to a competetent and responsible person. The offence created by section 3 is subject to the reasonably practicable defence, which is for a defendant to prove on a balance of probabilities "that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty …, or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement."
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 40
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.