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: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Plant Construction Plc v Clive Adams Associates and Another Times, 01 March 2000
1 Mar 2000
CA
Health and Safety, Construction
A sub-contractor obliged under contract to carry out works in a certain way and to a specification set down by the main contractor, remained under a duty to warn that employer of any obvious danger. He was subject to the normal standards of behaving with the skill and care of an ordinarily competent contractor whatever was said in the contract about obeying instructions.
Stark v Post Office Times, 29 March 2000; Gazette, 06 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 64; [2000] PIQR 105; [2000] ICR 1013
2 Mar 2000
CA
Waller LJ
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
The duty imposed by the regulations was absolute, and an employee postal worker who was injured when a brake on his bicycle broke, was entitled to damages. There is no rule to prevent a member state imposing duties over and above those required under European law. The bicycle was not 'in an efficient working order and in good repair'.
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2932) - European Directive 89/655
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Connor v Secretary of State for Scotland Times, 22 March 2000
22 Mar 2000
OHCS
Employment, Health and Safety, Negligence
A prison governor sent out a warder with two violent prisoners where it was policy not to bring such prisoners together. The warder suffered injury as a result. There could be no breach of statutory duty where the governor exercised a discretion given to him as to how a statutory function was to be fulfilled. Nevertheless he might be liable in negligence.
Regina v Paul Wurth Sa Times, 29 March 2000
29 Mar 2000
CACD
Health and Safety
The defendants had designed a conveyor, but failed to include in the drawings appropriate safety features. The plant was constructed, but failed causing a fatal injury. One company had designed the system, another had converted it into drawings and a third built the structure relying upon the drawings. The appellant had not prepared the design upon which the construction was based and was not criminally liable, and nor was he vicariously liable since the drawings had not been prepared under his control.
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 (1994 No 3140)
Holtby v Brigham and Cowan (Hull) Ltd Times, 12 April 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 111; [2000] 3 All ER 421
6 Apr 2000
CA
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Clarke
Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Damages
A claimant who sought damages for injuries suffered by the ingestion of asbestos whilst working for one employer, but had also worked for other periods for other employers where similar activities had been involved, had the onus in the claim to prove causation. It might be impossible to apportion the damage exactly, but he must demonstrate a substantial contribution from the defendant. Having been found responsible in this way, the employer would be responsible only to the extent of his contribution to the asbestosis. Each tortfeasor should be responsible only for the proportion which its exposure contributed to the damage.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Elvicta Wood Engineering Ltd and James Neal Services Ltd v Huxley [2000] EWCA Civ 139
19 Apr 2000
CA
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
[ Bailii ]
Swain v Denso Martin Ltd; CA 24-Apr-2000 - Times, 24 April 2000
Casey v Morane Limited Gazette, 25 May 2000; Times, 10 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 147
5 May 2000
CA
Damages, Personal Injury, Health and Safety
An employee suffered injuries at work for which he was adjudged 15% responsible and the company 85%. Because of the accident he was demoted and suffered loss of earnings. He claimed that loss of earnings in his action for damages. The court found that the company should pay the damages. The company was itself predominantly responsible for the damage caused, and these losses flowed directly from the accident.
[ Bailii ]
McLaughlin v East and Midlothian NHS Trust [2000] ScotCS 117; 2002 SLT 387
9 May 2000
SCS
Lord Hardie
Scotland, Health and Safety
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
Chief Adjudication Officer v Faulds (Scotland); HL 11-May-2000 - Gazette, 31 May 2000; Times, 16 May 2000; [2000] 2 All ER 961; [2000] UKHL 26; [2000] 1 WLR 1035
Cardiff City Transport Services, Regina v [2000] EWCA Crim 97
22 May 2000
CACD
Rose LJ VP, Jowittm Hallett JJ
Criminal Sentencing, Health and Safety
Health and Safety at Work Act 1984
[ Bailii ]
Makepeace v Evans Brothers (Reading) (A Firm) and Another Times, 13 June 2000; Gazette, 08 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 171; [2000] BLR 287
23 May 2000
CA
Mantell LJ
Negligence, Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Scaffolding is an ordinary piece of equipment on a building site. As a general rule an occupier of a building did not owe a duty of care for the safety of employees of its independent contractor. However, there may be occasions when such a duty of care might arise. It would be an unwarranted extension of the nursemaid school of negligence to hold a main contractor liable to the employee of a sub-contractor for failing to verify his training in the use of scaffolding on a building site. The main contractor's duties arose in favour of visitors to the site in respect of the condition of the site itself. Such judgements are not always easy or clear, since building sites and scaffolding are inherently dangerous places. Accordingly a main contractor was not liable in negligence nor under the Act where one contractor was injured as a result of using scaffolding erected by another sub-contractor. The person who erected the scaffolding was liable, but not in this case the site's main contractor.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Dietrich (Rec 2000,p I-5589) (Judgment) C-11/99; [2000] EUECJ C-11/99
6 Jul 2000
ECJ
European, Health and Safety
ECJ Directive 90/270/EEC on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment - Scope - Meaning of 'display screen equipment for the purposes of Article 2 - Meaning of 'drivers' cabs or control cabs for vehicles or machinery for the purposes of Article 1.
[ Bailii ]
Fraser v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland Times, 12 September 2000; [2000] ScotCS 191; 2001 SLT 1051
11 Jul 2000
OHCS
Lord Carloway
Personal Injury, Scotland, Health and Safety
An employer has a duty to take reasonable care to avoid for his employees unnecessary risk of injury including psychiatric and not merely physical injury, but that duty does not extend to a duty to avoid an employee experiencing unpleasant emotions short of such injury. Complication has been caused in this area of law because of its involvement with a related issue of a distinction between those suffering primary and secondary injuries, for example as witnesses of an event.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
Adamson T/A John Adamson and Sons v Procurator Fiscal, Lanark [2000] ScotHC 102
31 Oct 2000
HCJ
Lord Allanbridge and Lord Carloway and Lord Milligan
Scotland, Crime, Health and Safety
The appellant farmers were charged with a contravention of section 3(1) in respect that they failed to ensure that an Ayrshire bull which they kept in a field and attacked a man who was working on the grass verge of an adjacent public highway was securely fenced.
Lord Carloway said: "What requires to be proved by the Crown is that a particular operation exposed persons to the risk of harm, in this case physical injury. It is sufficient for the proof of the existence of risk that a possibility of danger is created. Actual harm need not be proved: R v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum [1993] 1 WLR 1171. If such possibility is made out on the evidence then a conviction is bound to follow unless the defence is established. Of course the Crown is obliged, as a matter of fair notice, to specify in the charge the particular operation said to give rise to the risk. In this case, that operation was the keeping of a bull in a field, which was not secured."
Health and Safety Act 1984 3(1)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
Regina v Croydon Justices, ex parte W H Smith Ltd Gazette, 30 November 2000; Times, 22 November 2000
22 Nov 2000
QBD
Health and Safety, Criminal Practice, Magistrates
The power to institute proceedings for a breach of the Act lay in the inspector, and he could not delegate it. The Act was explicit in its requirements as to who could issue proceedings. The informations were not laid when the inspector requested a local authority solicitor to issue them, and there was nothing to justify any inference of a power to delegate.
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 38
King v RCO Support Services Limited and Yorkshire Traction Company Limited Times, 07 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 314
8 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Henry And Lord Justice Kay
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
The appellant was employed by the first respondents as a steam cleaning operative. The first respondent had contracted to supply cleaning services to the second respondent at one of the second respondent's yards, where buses were cleaned. The appellant's place of employment was at that yard. The yard was iced and despite attempts to grit the ice, he slipped and was injured. His claim had been dismissed because he had not been engaged in operations at the time. Held: The task of moving the grit was itself a handling process. Appeal allowed.
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 4(1)(a) - Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 12(3)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
