Where a task required common-sense, and no obvious instructions were capable of avoiding a danger, an employer was not required to produce instruction and training. The judge erred in finding liability without finding what would have helped.
Sir Stephen Brown Lord Justice Swinton Thomas
Times 02-Apr-1999, Gazette 24-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 849
England and Wales
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145764
‘This case concerns an accident at the defenders’ racing stables on 25 March 2011. The pursuer was employed there by the defenders as trainer or assistant trainer. He was exercising a horse (‘Psalm 23′) on the training gallop. At the far end of the gallop, just before the third or final bend, his horse fell and landed on him. He was badly hurt. His left arm was injured and he has been left with a permanent impairment to his left side. He sues the defenders on the basis, in short, that the gallop was unsafe and that that was the cause of the fall.’
Lord Glennie
[2015] ScotCS CSOH – 70
Work at Height Regulations 2005, Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992
Scotland
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547657
ECJ Appeal – Actions for annulment – Admissibility – Premature action – Action out of time – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to effective judicial protection – European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) – Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Articles 57 and 59 – Substances subject to authorisation – Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern – Inclusion on the candidate list of substances – Publication of the list on the ECHA website – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Dies a quo – Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Claim barred by lapse of time
Cruz Villalon AG
C-625/11, [2013] EUECJ C-625/11
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 45
European
Opinion – Polyelectrolyte Producers Group Geie v European Chemicals Agency ECJ 26-Sep-2013
ECJ Appeal – European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) – Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances – Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) – Articles 57 and 59 – Substances subject to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471947
Criminal liability under the 1984 Act is strict save for the caveat as to reasonable practicability.
Gazette 22-Jan-1997
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
England and Wales
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.85785
An offence was committed under the Act unless the company takes all reasonable steps to protect its employees.
Times 02-Jan-1997
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.86683
Ward, Elias, Lewison LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 392
England and Wales
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462554
Liability for vibration white finger damage was foreseeable from 1973, but liability began in 1975 when precautions became available against the consequences and so the employer was able to protect his employees.
Times 06-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1049
England and Wales
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140916
The appellants were convicted of failing to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, persons not in their employment were not exposed to risks to their health and safety. One of their buildings contained two cooling towers which, when inspected, were found to contain the bacteria which causes legionnaire’s disease. No-one had actually succumbed to that disease, but there was a risk to health and safety and the prosecution’s case was that prima facie there was a breach of section 3(1) because the appellants had failed to ensure that persons not in their employment were not exposed to that risk. The appellants contended that no actual risk to the public had been established.
Held: Section 3(3) of the 1974 Act contains an absolute prohibition subject only to the defence in the section of reasonable practicality. The court referred to the concept of risk as containing the idea of ‘a possibility of danger’.
Steyn LJ said that the ordinary meaning of the word ‘risks’ supported the prosecution’s interpretation that the section was concerned with the possibility of danger: ‘The adoption of the restrictive interpretation argued for by the defence would make enforcement of section 3(1), and to some extent also of sections 20, 21 and 22, more difficult and would in our judgment result in a substantial emasculation of a central part of the Act of 1974. The interpretation which renders those statutory provisions effective in their role of protecting public health and safety is to be preferred.’
Steyn LJ
Gazette 26-May-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 1171
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 33
England and Wales
Applied – Regina v British Steel Plc CACD 31-Dec-1994
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 . .
Cited – Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
Cited – Chargot Limited (T/A Contract Services) and Others, Regina v HL 10-Dec-2008
The victim died on a farm when his dumper truck overturned burying him in its load.
Held: The prosecutor needed to establish a prima facie case that the results required by the Act had not been achieved. He need only establish that a risk of . .
Cited – Regina v Porter CACD 19-May-2008
Everyday risks may be outwith Health and Safety
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 1974 Act. He was headmaster at a private school. A child of three jumped from steps in the playground injured his head and was taken to hospital where he contracted MRSA and died.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.86155
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.’
Stuart-Smith LJ
Times 03-Aug-1994, Gazette 07-Oct-1994, Ind Summary 29-Aug-1994, [1994] 4 All ER 1051
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2 3(1)
England and Wales
Applied – Regina v British Steel Plc CACD 31-Dec-1994
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 . .
Cited – Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.86063
An employer’s duty to safeguard his employees against the dangers of working on fragile surfaces requires some physical protection to be given rather than just warnings and or training.
Times 01-Dec-1995
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.87622
A regulation encompassed a requirement to take specified action, so far as it is reasonably practicable, in order to prevent danger. Asquith LJ discussed the term: ”Reasonably practicable’ . . seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner, in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other; and that if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge the onus on them.’
Asquith LJ
[1949] 1 KB 704
England and Wales
Cited – Austin Rover Group Ltd v Her Majesty’s Inspector of Factories HL 1990
The relevant factors in the phrase the words ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ are the foreseeable risk of injury and the cost of the preventive measures. ‘Sections 2 and 3 impose duties in relation to safety on a single person, whether an . .
Cited – Mann v Northern Electric Distribution Ltd CA 26-Feb-2010
Climb over high fence was unforeseeable
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages after suffering very severe injury when climbing onto an electricity substation. He said that the defendant had not satisfied its statutory obligation to fence off the substation. The . .
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group and Others CA 5-Jun-2009
The court considered a request that one of the three judges (Sedley LJ) recuse himself on the grounds of apparent bias. It was a case claiming damages for personal injury in the form of hearing losses incurred at work. Sedley LJ was Hon President of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.401956
ECJ Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 90/270 / EEC – Protection of workers – Work with display screen equipment – Minimum safety and health requirements – Failure to transpose
[2004] EUECJ C-359/03
European
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.214650
Richard Seymour QC J
[2008] EWHC 2693 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.427044
ECJ Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 2003/88/EC – Organisation of working time – Fire fighters employed in the public sector – Operational service – Article 6(b) and Article 22(1)(b) – Maximum weekly working time – Refusal to work longer than that time – Compulsory transfer to another service – Direct effect – Consequence for national courts.
C-243/09, [2010] EUECJ C-243/09
European
Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425288
ECJ (Opinion) Social policy Protection of the safety and health of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding’ Directive 92/85 / EEC Articles 5 and 11 (1) Maintenance of remuneration and / or benefit ‘Worker transferred to another position during pregnancy’ Assignment due to risk to her health and that of her child ‘Remuneration lower than average remuneration received before temporary assignment to another post’ Former Compensation Monthly salary and bonuses
C-471/08, [2009] EUECJ C-471/08 – O
European
Opinion – Parviainen v Finnair Oyj ECJ 1-Jul-2010
ECJ Social policy – Directive 92/85/EEC – Protection of the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding – Articles 5(2) and 11(1) – Worker . .
Opinion – Parviainen (Social Policy) ECJ 1-Jul-2010
Social policy – Directive 92/85/EEC – Protection of the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding – Articles 5(2) and 11(1) – Worker temporarily transferred to another job during her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384495
The deceased had died in an accident whilst filming in Spain for the defendants. The plaintiff personal representatives sought damages here, while the defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction under the 1968 Convention, and said that the death actually occurred as a consequence of the negligence of his medical treatment in Spain.
Phillips J
[1994] EWHC QB 1, [1996] 1 WLR 920, [1994] ILPr 731, [1994] 3 All ER 42
Brussels Convention on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments 1968, Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
Cited – Haqen v Zeehaqhe ECJ 1990
ECJ ‘Article 6(2) makes provision for a special jurisdiction, which the Plaintiff may choose because of the existence, in clearly defined situations, of a particularly close connecting factor between a dispute . .
Cited – Somafer Sa v Saar-Ferngas Ag ECJ 22-Nov-1978
ECJ 1. The Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted having regard both to its principles and objectives and to its relationship with the treaty. The question whether the words and concepts used in the . .
Cited – Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst and Co and others ECJ 27-Sep-1988
ECJ For Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383805
A failure to provide guidance to employee resulting in repetitive strain injury. A prescribed disease PDA4 of RSI type was found. The issue was causation not forseeability.
Gazette 02-Aug-1996, Gazette 23-Oct-1996
England and Wales
Appealed to – Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc HL 30-Jun-1998
In the absence of conclusive evidence establishing a cause of a condition, the judge was free to find that causation was not established and that the claim was lost. There was no necessary obligation on an employer to have procedures which might . .
Appeal from – Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc HL 30-Jun-1998
In the absence of conclusive evidence establishing a cause of a condition, the judge was free to find that causation was not established and that the claim was lost. There was no necessary obligation on an employer to have procedures which might . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.77802
[2008] EWHC 2343 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276981
The claimant was replacing a computer memory card. He fell from a ladder suffering injury. He was employed by the defendant contracting for another defendant, and used a ladder on loan from another neighbour.
Held: The contribution sought from the owner of the ladder failed. It had not been proved that East owned the ladder, and therefore their duty went no further in this case than to make sure whilst it was under their control it did not get in anyone’s way.
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Longmore
[2008] EWCA Civ 494, Times 04-Jun-2008, [2008] ICR 971
Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (1992 No 2932)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Mason v Satelcom Ltd and others QBD 24-Jul-2007
The claimant IT engineer was injured replacing a computer card. He was employed by other defendants contracting for the now only continuing defendant. . .
Cited – Smith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009
The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer.
Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267654
Rose LJ VP, Jowittm Hallett JJ
[2000] EWCA Crim 97
Health and Safety at Work Act 1984
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263617
The defendant had employed to clean a well. In error a petrol pump was sued, which discharged carbon monoxide into the well. On two workers getting into difficulties, a doctor sought to rescue them. All three died in the well. The employer denied negligence as regards the death of the Doctor.
Held: ‘ Bearing in mind that danger invites rescue, the court should not be astute to accept criticism of the rescuer’s conduct from the wrongdoer who created the danger. Moreover, I think it should be remembered that it is fatally easy to be wise after the event. It is not enough that, when all the evidence has been sifted and all the facts ascertained in the calm and deliberate atmosphere of a court of law, the rescuer’s conduct can be shown ex post facto to have been misguided or foolhardy. He is entitled to be judged in the light of the situation as it appeared to him at the time, i.e., in a context of immediate and pressing emergency. Here Dr. Baker was faced with a situation in which two men were in danger of speedy death at the bottom of the well, unless something were done very quickly. He was a doctor, and he had been specially summoned to help. Any man of courage in his position would have felt impelled to act, even at the risk of his own safety. Time was pressing; immediate action was necessary if the men in danger were to be helped; there was virtually no opportunity for reflection, or for estimating the risks involved in an act of rescue. If Dr. Baker in such circumstances had instinctively gone straight down the well, without stopping to take any precautions at all, it would, I think, have been difficult enough to criticise him. But in point of fact he did take the very wise precaution of securing himself with a rope, whereby those on the surface could pull him up if he himself were overcome. The immediate cause of his death was the sheer mischance of the rope becoming caught on some obstruction, so as to make it impossible for those on the surface to pull him to safety. I do not think that, having regard to the emergency in which he was acting, he is to be blamed for not foreseeing and guarding against the possibility of such a mischance. On the contrary, I entirely agree with the view expressed by the judge that the defendants, whose negligence brought about the danger, must accept the risk of mischances of this kind. In all the circumstances, I find it impossible to accept the contention that Dr. Baker was guilty of any negligence either causing or contributing to his death.’
Morris, Ormerod, Willmer LJJ
[1959] EWCA Civ 4, [1959] 1 WLR 966, [1959] 3 All ER 225
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262820
The claimant appealed dismissal of her claim for personal injuries. She worked at a nursing home, and had slipped on urine on the floor. Slip mats had been placed on the floor, but had been insufficient. There had been previous accidents, and a risk assessment had identified the dangers, and steps taken. The claim was based on the construction of the floor.
Held: The judge had wrongly not considered the associated Code of Practice as an aid to construction of the Regulations. The appeal was allowed. The judge had been wrong to have excluded all but permanent features of the floor: ‘Regulation 12(1) and (2) do require the court to consider suitability in the context of the circumstances of use, including circumstances which are temporary in nature, providing they arise with a sufficient degree of frequency and regularity. The paragraphs read together require that the surface of a floor or traffic route must not be slippery.’
Smith LJ, Lloyd LJ, Wilson LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 685, Times 21-Aug-2007, [2007] ICR 1614
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 12, Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
England and Wales
Cited – Rogers v George Blair 1971
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254461
A lift was held to be work equipment within the Regulations.
[2006] EWCA Civ 1119, [2007] ICR 78
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 5
England and Wales
Cited – Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others HL 2-Jul-2008
The deceased worked for the defendants on an oil rig. He was injured by a door closer he was attempting to repair. The defendants denied that the mechanism was equipment within the Regulations.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The door closer was . .
Cited – Smith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009
The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer.
Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244102
The court gave guidance on the procedures to be adopted to avoid difficulties arising from factual differences between medical experts.
Buxton LJ discussed the status of quotations recorded by the doctor examining a claimant, saying: ‘What the doctor writes down as having been told him by the patient, as opposed to the opinion that he expresses on the basis of those statements, is not at that stage evidence of the making of the statement that he records.’
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Wall
Times 22-Mar-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 169
England and Wales
Cited – Charnock and Others v Rowan and Others CA 20-Jan-2012
14 passengers in a bus hit from behind at a slow speed had all claimed whiplash injury. The expert had said that the accepted speed required to produce such an injury was a change of 3mph, which would require an impact at 30mph, whereas the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238897
The House considered the effect of a statutory provision that: ‘the roof and sides of every travelling road, outlet and working place shall be made secure’
Held: Lord Reid said: ‘I cannot see why it should matter just how the accident was caused provided that it was in fact caused by a breach of the section. I see no ground for imputing to Parliament an intention to make the mineowner liable for some of the consequences of breach but to relieve him of liability for others.’ and ‘The question whether an employer is liable to an employee for injuries caused to him by breach of a statutory duty depends on whether there can be implied from the terms of the statute imposing the duty an enactment that the employer shall be so liable. In general that is implied from the enactment of a duty in the interest of the safety of employees . .’
Lord Reid
[1956] AC 649
England and Wales
Cited – McDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc SC 22-Oct-2014
Contact visiting plants supported asbestos claim
The deceased had worked as a lorry driver regularly collecting pulverized fuel ash from a power station. On his visits he was at areas with asbestos dust. He came to die from mesothelioma. His widow now pursued his claim that the respondent had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.538254
Lady Cosgrove And Lord Penrose And Lord Reed
[2005] ScotCS CSIH – 28, 2005 SLT 523
Scotland
See Also – Salamis (Marine and Industrial) Limited v Douglas Forbes OHCS 14-Jul-2005
. .
Appeal from – Robb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228091
The defendant company had been fined when a train was derauled as a result of the company’s failure properly to maintain rail track. It appealed the fine of andpound;400,000.
Held: Fines should properly be increased where the failure arose in the course of provision of a public service. However here had been no significant injury or damage. Even allowing for the need for deterrence the fine was reduced to andpound;275,000.
Waller, LJ, hedley, Royce JJ
Times 08-Jun-2005, [2005] EWCA Crim 1409
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 33
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226038
[2005] EWCA Civ 16
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222038
Application for a permission to appeal .
Latham LJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 1784
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218494
Two police officers sought damages after their patrol car was trapped and attacked by youths. Senior officers were aware of such attacks, and considered arrangements for different windscreens.
Held: The risk was forseeable, and given the additional known risks faced by police officers, it was reasonable for the authority to have acted.
[2001] EWCA Civ 1556
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218461
[2004] EWCA Civ 1194
England and Wales
Appeal from – W A Duthie v Bath and North East Somerset Council EAT 29-Apr-2003
The claimant said he had not been given time off from work to attend relevant health and safety training courses. The company responded that the regulations had been repealed, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Held: Jurisdiction was . .
Appeal from – W A Duthie v Bath and North East Somerset Council EAT 29-Apr-2003
The claimant said he had not been given time off from work to attend relevant health and safety training courses. The company responded that the regulations had been repealed, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Held: Jurisdiction was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215975
Social policy – Occupational diseases – Effects of a recommendation.
R-322/88, [1989] EUECJ R-322/88
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215745
The relevant factors in the phrase the words ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ are the foreseeable risk of injury and the cost of the preventive measures. ‘Sections 2 and 3 impose duties in relation to safety on a single person, whether an individual or a corporation, who is in a position to exercise complete control over the matters to which the duties extend. An employer can control the conditions of work of his employees and the manner in which he conducts his undertaking.’
Lord Goff said ‘for the purpose of considering whether the defendant has discharged the onus which rests upon him to establish that it was not reasonably practicable for him, in the circumstances, to eliminate the relevant risk, there has to be taken into account (inter alia) the likelihood of that risk eventuating. The degree of likelihood is an important element in the equation. It follows that the effect is to bring into play forseeability in the sense of likelihood of the incidence of the relevant risk, and that the likelihood of such risk eventuating has to be weighed against the means, including cost, necessary to eliminate it.’
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
[1990] 1 AC 619
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
England and Wales
Cited – Edwards v National Coal Board CA 1949
A regulation encompassed a requirement to take specified action, so far as it is reasonably practicable, in order to prevent danger. Asquith LJ discussed the term: ”Reasonably practicable’ . . seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by . .
Cited – Regina v Associated Octel Ltd HL 14-Nov-1996
The appellants operated a chemical plant. When the plant was shut down for its annual maintenance, an independent firm repaired a tank lining. An employee of that firm was working by electric light. He had to clean the tank with acetone and resin. . .
Cited – Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
Cited – Mann v Northern Electric Distribution Ltd CA 26-Feb-2010
Climb over high fence was unforeseeable
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages after suffering very severe injury when climbing onto an electricity substation. He said that the defendant had not satisfied its statutory obligation to fence off the substation. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.184757
[2001] ScotCS 285
Scotland
Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202252
The employer appealed a finding that it was responsible in negligence to a staff member for stress related injury at work. The claimant had worked in the coal industry for 20 years, but she had then been made redundant. The defendants took her on as their Technical Support and Training Manager. Her reference said that she ‘would not be particularly good in a highly stressful environment but she is good at dealing with IT users, training and communication.’ She had a pre-existing emotional vulnerability but this was not apparent to the defendants.
Held: Lord Phillips MR said: ‘An employer will be in breach of duty to an employee if the employer subjects the employee to severe pressure of work in circumstances where the employer knows, or ought reasonably to foresee, that this is likely to cause the employee to suffer some form of breakdown which results in psychiatric injury. Happily most employees are sufficiently robust to withstand the stress of a heavy workload. Thus it is normally necessary to demonstrate, before breach of duty can be established, that the employer had particular reason to apprehend the danger that such injury would be caused to the individual employee.’ The defendants did not have reason to apprehend the danger and accordingly were not liable when she broke down.
Lord Phillips MR
Times 30-Jun-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 1296, [2004] IRLR 164
England and Wales
Cited – Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
Cited – Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc CA 19-Jan-2005
The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186535
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.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Clarke
Times 12-Apr-2000, Gazette 11-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 111, [2000] 3 All ER 421
England and Wales
Applied – Thompson v Smiths Shiprepairers (North Shields) Ltd QBD 1984
The test to be applied in determining the time at which an employer’s failure to provide protection constituted actionable negligence was what would have been done at any particular time by a reasonable and prudent employer who was properly but not . .
Cited – Environment Agency v Ellis CA 17-Oct-2008
The claimant was injured working for the appellants. The appellants now appealed the finding that they were responsible saying that other factors contributed to the injury, and in particular that he had fallen at home. The claimant said that that . .
Cited – Horsley v Cascade Insulation Services Ltd and Others QBD 18-Nov-2009
The claimant sought damages after contracting asbestosis through employment exposure with the defendants. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185908
[2003] ScotSC 41
Scotland
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184675
Lord Reed
[2003] ScotCS 66, 2003 SCLR 384
Scotland
Cited – Munro v Aberdeen City Council SCS 17-Sep-2009
Safety Duty on Employer was not Absolute
The pursuer was injured slipping on ice in her defender employer’s car park. Liability depended on the interpretation of regulation 5, the claimant saying that it imposed an absolute requirement to maintain the workplace in efficient working order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183992
A seaman was injured taking part in a safety drill aboard ship. The defendant had been found not to be negligent, but the claimant alleged breach of statutory duty under the Regulations.
Held: Groves v Wimborne clearly established that parliament was to be taken to have intended to proivide a remedy in damages for breach of the regulations. The section intended bring working conditions on board a ship into line with conditions prevailing on land. Todd could properly be distinguished, and an action for damages would lie.
Aldous, Mummery, Rix LJJ
[2003] EWCA Civ 636, Times 15-May-2003
Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Regulations 1980 (1980 No 538) 43(10)
England and Wales
Distinguished – Todd and Others v Adams and Another CA 18-Apr-2002
The boat owners had failed to comply with the 1975 safety rules, and seamen died. The boat owners relied upon the restriction on damages in the 1995 Act, and the seamen’s families argued that the failure to apply the safety rules removed that . .
Applied – Groves v Lord Wimborne CA 1898
The court heard a case dealing with a claim for breach of a duty to fence dangerous machinery under the Act.
Held: Legislation protecting safety in the workplace gives rise to an action by a person for whom the protection was intended for . .
Cited – Butler (or Black) v Fife Coal Co, Ltd HL 19-Dec-1911
The court considered whether a civil remedy existed for breach of statutory duty. Lord Kinnear said: ‘If the duty be established, I do not think there is any serious question as to civil liability. There is no reasonable ground for maintaining that . .
Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181942
The pursuer’s minor accident occurred when he shut a gate, in the mine in which he was employed, on the index finger of his non-dominant, right hand.
T.G. Coutts, Q.C.
[1998] ScotCS 18
Scotland
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.169799
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – -Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work – Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) – Employer’s duty to keep documents containing an assessment of the risks to safety and health at work.
[2002] EUECJ C-5/00
European
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167656
The claimant sought damages for personal injuries after injuring her back at work as a caretaker. She alleged a failure to provide a safe system of work. She was asked to move folding tables weighing up to 30lbs. They were to be stored vertically. She hurt her back lifting one from the vertical to a horizontal axis. No training had been given in how the tables were to be moved.
Held: A breach of the duty to make an assessment does not in itself gives rise to liability in damages. The steps proposed to reduce the risk were not practicable in the circumstances, and the claim failed.
Lady Smith
[2002] ScotCS 13
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2793)
Scotland
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167453
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.
Gazette 30-Nov-2000, Times 22-Nov-2000
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 38
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88431
Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 97/65/EC
[2001] ECR I-7555, ECLI:EU:C:2001:539, [2001] EUECJ C-111/00
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166682
(Judgment) Failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 94/69/EC
[1998] EUECJ C-79/98
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162346
Foskett J
[2014] EWHC 3474 (Admin)
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
England and Wales
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.538255
Challenge to improvement notice.
Ognall J
[2000] IRLR 243, [1999] EWHC Admin 376
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 21, Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations of 1992
England and Wales
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139640
The company had contracted to remove asbestos. Before work was to start, the inspector found defective equipment. The prosecutor appealed the acquittal on appeal to the Crown Court.
Held: An employer’s duty of care extends to all employees, and not just those working on a particular plant and even when the plant was not in use. The duty under s2 applied to all employees ‘at work’ and was not restricted to those intended to use the plant in question. The duty to provide safe equipment applied even though it had not been used.
Times 04-Aug-1994, Gazette 06-Jan-1993, [1993] ICR 358, (1993) 137 SJLB 13, [1993] IRLR 274, [1993] COD 391
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2(1) 2(a)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.78474
The claimant sought damages from the defendant after the death of her father in the Potters Bar rail crash. The defendant applied for summary judgment saying that English law did not recognise a claim by a family member of a deceased save through the claim of the estate itself. The claimant said that this would deny her human rights, and sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to s1A of the 1976 Act.
Held: ‘It is within the reasonable margin of appreciation of the State to limit those who are entitled to claim compensation to those who are financially dependent on the deceased. Who otherwise should say where the line should be drawn between those who may claim from those who may not? ‘ The claimants had also lost any possibility of a claim through limitation.
Times 14-Jun-2006, [2006] EWHC 1133 (QB)
Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000, Human Rights Act 1998, Fatal Accidents Act 1976 1A, Railways Act 1993
England and Wales
Cited – Takoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
Cited – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
Cited – Foster and others v British Gas plc ECJ 12-Jul-1990
The defendants (BGC) were nationalised suppliers of gas. BGC was by statute a body with a legal persona operating under the supervision of the authorities. Its members were appointed by the Secretary of State, who also determined their remuneration. . .
Cited – Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.242210
In the absence of conclusive evidence establishing a cause of a condition, the judge was free to find that causation was not established and that the claim was lost. There was no necessary obligation on an employer to have procedures which might create claims.
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead
Times 30-Jun-1998, [1998] UKHL 25, [1998] 3 All ER 462, [1998] 1 WLR 1189
Appeal from – Anne Margaret Pickford v ICI CA 2-Aug-1996
A failure to provide guidance to employee resulting in repetitive strain injury. A prescribed disease PDA4 of RSI type was found. The issue was causation not forseeability. . .
See Also – ICI Plc v Colmer (Inspector of Taxes) HL 15-Mar-1996
A ‘Holding company’ under the Act meant a company resident in the UK; A reference was made of the issues to the European Court. . .
Appealed to – Anne Margaret Pickford v ICI CA 2-Aug-1996
A failure to provide guidance to employee resulting in repetitive strain injury. A prescribed disease PDA4 of RSI type was found. The issue was causation not forseeability. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84731
The court considered the meaning of the term ‘dangerous’ in the Act. Lord Justice Clerk Cooper: ‘The question is not whether the occupiers of the factory knew that it was dangerous; nor whether a factory inspector had so reported; nor whether previous accidents had occurred; nor whether the victims of these accidents had, or had not, been contributorily negligent. The test is objective and impersonal. Is the part such in its character, and so circumstanced in its position, exposure, method of operation and the like, that in the ordinary course of human affairs danger may reasonably be anticipated from its use unfenced, not only to the prudent, alert and skilled operative intent on his task, but also to the careless or inattentive worker whose inadvertent or indolent conduct may expose him to risk of injury or death from the unguarded part?’
Lord Justice Clerk Cooper
1945 JC 69
Cited – Robb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.247756
The defendant complained that section 40 imposed a burden of proof upon him which infringed the presumption of innocence and his right to a fair trial. The trial judge held that the burden imposed a legal burden rather than an evidential one.
Held: The Act could not be read down so as to impose only an evidential burden on the defendant. The court applied the three stage test from Kebilene, asking what the prosecution had first to prove to transfer the burden, then what are the characteristics of what the defendant had to prove, and what was the threat to society addressed by the transfer of the burden. Here, there was no threat of imprisonment, and enforcement would be impossible without such a transfer.
Tuckey LJ, Douglas Brown, Gordon JJ
Times 27-Dec-2002
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 33(1)(a) 40
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.178604
[1952] 1 TLR 1272
England and Wales
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.440382
Hodson LJ
[1952] 2 QB 877
England and Wales
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.440379
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.
Times 22-Mar-2000
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79455
Dry sweeping asbestos dust was a process involving asbestos and was to be treated accordingly.
Times 08-Apr-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80250
A company is not vicariously liable for the failure of the Captain of ship to comply with the section. The section was not framed so as to appear to give rise to criminal liability of an employer for acts of an employee in such circumstances. The owner did not have personal vicarious liability for everything done in operating the ship.
Gazette 24-Mar-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.89075
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.’
Smith J
Times 08-Feb-1994, [1994] 4 All ER 1037
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)
England and Wales
Doubted – Regina v Associated Octel Ltd HL 14-Nov-1996
The appellants operated a chemical plant. When the plant was shut down for its annual maintenance, an independent firm repaired a tank lining. An employee of that firm was working by electric light. He had to clean the tank with acetone and resin. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88794
The appellant’s deceased husband was an engine-driver in the respondents’ service. In March 1907, while his engine was at Landore, Swansea, he descended in order to turn a water-crane to his engine. He afterwards crossed another line of rails in order to get a book from a friend on another engine. This was a private purpose of the deceased’s, unconnected with his work. While returning to his own engine he was knocked down and killed by a waggon in course of shunting. Held that the accident did not arise ‘out of and in the course of’ his employment under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897, section 1.
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Ashbourne, Macnaghten, and James of Hereford
[1908] UKHL 700, 46 SLR 700
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621523
Under the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887 an additional special rule was in force in a mine which provided-‘The bottomer at a mid-working. . . shall not open the gate fencing the shaft until the cage is stopped at such mid-working . . ‘
A bottomer at a mid-working, in need of the cage, signalled for it by calling down the shaft to the bottomer at the foot, who again signalled to the engineer at the surface to raise the cage which was then at the foot. This was the usual mode of signalling, and the engineer on receipt of the signal, generally, without further signal, stopped the cage at the mid-working, but he did not invariably do so. On the occasion in question he did not stop the cage at the mid-working. The bottomer there after having heard the signal given to the engineer, without ascertaining whether the cage had stopped, in breach of the additional special rule, opened the gate fencing the shaft, and then went behind his hutch and pushed it into the shaft. The hutch fell to the bottom of the shaft dragging the miner with it, and he received injuries, which however were not serious or permanent. A few days prior to the accident he had been warned as to non-observance of the rule. In an arbitration under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 the arbiter found that the bottomer’s injuries were due to his own ‘serious and wilful misconduct,’ and refused compensation.
Held that there was evidence upon which the arbiter might so find.
Observations (per Lord Chancellor and Lord Robertson) upon the effect towards establishing ‘serious and wilful misconduct’ of an admitted or proved breach of a statutory rule by the workman.
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Robertson and Lord Collins
[1908] UKHL 28, 46 SLR 28
Scotland
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621525
A workman in poor physical condition was engaged in a steamer’s stokehold raking ashes from the furnace; he received a heat-stroke from the radiation of the boiler and died in a few hours.
Held ( diss. Lord Macnaghten) that the death was caused by accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906.
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Ashbourne and Macnaghten
[1908] UKHL 699, 46 SLR 699
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621517
A seaman was accidentally injured while engaged in his ordinary work as a sailor on board his ship. At the time she had completed coaling and was lying in the middle of the dock basin moored to buoys and waiting to proceed to sea on the following day.
Held (diss Lord James of Hereford) that the employment in which the injured man was engaged was not one to which the Workmen’s Compensation Act applied.
Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lords Macnaghten, James of Hereford, and Lindley
[1905] UKHL 865, 42 SLR 865
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897 1 7
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621177
In consequence of a wreck in one of the shafts of a mine the miners were ordered to the surface. Those accustomed to ascend by the damaged shaft were directed to ascend by another shaft. They were detained an hour and a-half waiting until this shaft was free, the miners accustomed to use it being taken up first. While waiting they in their heated state were exposed to a downdraught of cold air. One of them caught a chill, upon which pneumonia supervened and he died. The arbiter in a claim for compensation found that his death was due to accident arising out of the employment. Held (rev. judgment of the Second Division) that the arbiter’s finding was right.
Lord Dunedin, Lord Kinnear, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, and Lord Parmoor
[1914] UKHL 492, 51 SLR 492
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
Scotland
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620713
Frank Whittall was a miner and was killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the respondents. Thomas Lloyd was the illegitimate son of Alice Lloyd by Frank Whittall, born seven months after the latter’s death. At the arbitration Alice Lloyd gave evidence, objected to by the respondents but admitted and accepted by the arbitrator, that Whittall shortly before his death promised to marry her before the child was born. William Jones and Matilda Evans, whose evidence was similarly objected to and accepted, also testified to Whittall’s intention to marry Alice Lloyd.
Being satisfied by this evidence that Whittall had intended to marry Alice Lloyd before the birth of the child, and that at the time of Whittall’s death Thomas Lloyd was wholly dependent on his earnings, the arbitrator made an award for pounds 213 and costs.
The Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator was wrong in deciding that Thomas Lloyd was a dependant of Whittall within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, and in admitting the evidence of Alice Lloyd, William Jones, and Matilda Evans.
Held: Where a claim was made on behalf of the posthumous illegitimate child of a workman who was killed by an accident in the course of his employment, held that (a) statements made by the workman to the effect that the child was his and that he would marry the mother before the child was born are evidence of paternity and dependence; ( b) the County Court Judge cannot on a claim based on partial dependence award compensation based on total dependence.
Opinion per Lord Shaw that the fact of dependency, whether in the case of legitimate or illegitimate children, does not necessarily rest on proving a promise of support by the father.
Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson, Shaw, and Moulton
[1914] UKHL 631, 52 SLR 631
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620714
A schoolmaster at an industrial school, while performing his duties, was assaulted and killed by two of his pupils (who had formed a conspiracy for that purpose, and were afterwards tried and found guilty of manslaughter). A dependant having claimed compensation, the County Court Judge found that the deceased met his death by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Held (1) that his death was due to an accident, and (2) that there was evidence to support the finding of the arbitrator that the accident arose out of his employment.
Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, and Parker dissented.
Lord Chancellor (Viscount Haldane), Earl Loreburn, Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, Shaw, Parker, and Reading
[1914] UKHL 612, 52 SLR 612
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620711
Contrary to orders, a boy employed on a machine sat on the guard of the machine, and in consequence caught his foot in the machinery. Had he been standing the accident could not have happened.
Held that he was entitled to compensation.
Earl Loreburn, Lords Parker, Sumner, and Parmoor
[1915] UKHL 503, 53 SLR 503
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620683
A coalheaver was struck in the abdomen by a fall of coal while coaling a ship. He died from peritonitis, and the medical evidence showed him to have been suffering from chronic appendicitis. The question arose whether his death was the result of the blow or of the disease. The arbitrator found his widow entitled to compensation on the ground that the blow was the immediate cause of death though it would not have killed a healthy man. Held ( diss. Lords Parker and Sumner and rev. decision of Court of Appeal, 6 B.W.C.C. 750), that the award proceeded on sufficient evidence.
Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson, Parker, Sumner, and Parmoor
[1915] UKHL 516, 53 SLR 516
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620680
Compensation had been paid by weekly payments for injuries received by a workman, and had been discontinued on the workman’s recovery and return to work. About two years later the workman, having meantime been in hospital with an illness which was not the result of the accident, claimed compensation on the ground of partial incapacity arising from the original injuries. The employers demanded that the work-man should submit to medical examination, and on the second occasion the man refused to do so. Consequently the employers, successfully, applied to the County Court for an order staying the proceedings till he should submit himself to such examination. Held (aff. Court of Appeal, 7 B.W.C.C. 138) that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, Sched. I, par. 4, which paragraph here applied, the workman was bound to submit to as many examinations as the employer might reasonably require, and that there was no suggestion that the demand was in this case unreasonable.
Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson and Parker
[1915] UKHL 524, 53 SLR 524
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620679
A seaman, with leave, went on shore to buy provisions, his contract of service being ‘Crew to supply their own provisions.’ On the seaman’s return he fell into the water and was drowned, somewhere in the length of the pier at the end of which his ship had been moored, but from which she had been moved to another berth.
Held that the accident did not arise ‘out of and in the course of his employment.’
Earl Loreburn, Lords Parker, Sumner, Parmoor, and Wrenbury
[1915] UKHL 500, 53 SLR 500
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620684
A watchman was employed to look after some trawlers while lying in a harbour, his duties extending from Saturday afternoon to Sunday afternoon, a period of 25 hours. He supplied his own food, which was sometimes brought him by members of his family. It was necessary for him at times to be on the quay. On Saturday night he went to an hotel a short distance from the quay, had half-a-glass of whisky and a glass of beer, and on returning to the quay proceeded to descend a fixed ladder to get on board one of the trawlers, when he slipped, fell into the water, and was drowned. He had only been absent at the hotel a short time.
Held (rev. judgment of the Second Division) that there was evidence to support a finding by an arbiter that the accident was one ‘arising out of and in the course of’ the employment; per Lords Ashbourne, Atkinson, and Shaw, on the ground that the watchman had returned to, and was within, the sphere of his duty when the accident occurred; and per Lord James, on the ground that the obtaining of refreshment was necessary for the fulfilment of his duty- dissenting the Lord Chancellor, on the ground that though the watchman had arrived within the ambit of his duty, he was not on the ladder in the course of it, but in returning to it; and Lord Gorell, on the ground that the duty of watching prohibited the watchman’s being away, and while he was entitled to be on the quay, there was no proof, the onus being on the claimant, that the watchman was there in connection with his duty. Authorities reviewed.
Observations, per Lord Shaw, approving and applying Henderson v. Glasgow Corporation, July 5, 1900, 2 F. 1127, 37 S.L.R. 857, to the effect that where an arbiter is of opinion that the question whether an accident is one arising out of and in the course of the employment is purely one of fact, he is entitled so to find and to refuse to state a case.
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord James of Hereford, Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, and Lord Shaw of Dunfermline
[1909] UKHL 901
Scotland
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620587
A blasting accident occurred in a coal mine, and an action was raised against the mine-owners in respect of injuries received by a miner. It was proved that statutory regulations as to the methods of blasting had been broken, certain obligatory precautions not having been taken. Under these circumstances held that the onus of proof lay upon the mine-owners to show that they had not failed in their duty of care.
The Earl of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne, Atkinson, Gorell, and Shaw
[1909] UKHL 609
England and Wales
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620593
A workman suffered from a diseased condition of the arteries, and he died of an apoplectic seizure while engaged at work. There was no evidence to show that the apoplexy resulted from a strain or any other incident of labour.
Held that there was no evidence that the death had occurred from accident arising out of the employment
[1910] UKHL 727, 48 SLR 727
England and Wales
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619801
The court considered whether a civil remedy existed for breach of statutory duty. Lord Kinnear said: ‘If the duty be established, I do not think there is any serious question as to civil liability. There is no reasonable ground for maintaining that a proceeding by way of penalty is the only remedy allowed by the statute. . We are to consider the scope and purpose of the statute and in particular for whose benefit it is intended. Now the object of the present statute is plain. It was intended to compel mine owners to make due provision for the safety of the men working in their mines, and the persons for whose benefit all these rules are to be enforced are the persons exposed to danger. But when a duty of this kind is imposed for the benefit of particular persons, there arises at common law a correlative right in those persons who may be injured by its contravention. Therefore I think that it is impossible to hold that the penalty clause detracts in any way from the prima facie right of the persons for whose benefit the statutory enactment has been passed to enforce the civil liability. I think this has been found both in England and Scotland in cases in which the point was directly raised, the case of Groves v. Lord Wimborne in England and Kelly v. Glebe Sugar Refining Company in Scotland.’
The Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887, sec. 49, enacts-‘The following general rules shall be observed, so far as is reasonably practicable, in every mine.’
Held that although this did not impose on the mine-owner an absolute duty that the rules be observed, it placed on him, in the event of a breach of a rule, the onus of proving that he had done everything that was practicable to have the rule observed. If he failed to discharge this onus, he was liable at common law for any damage resulting therefrom, and could not derive protection from the doctrine of common employment.
Circumstances in which held that the owners of a coal mine were liable at common law and not under the Employers’ Liability Act 1880 only, for the death of a miner from carbon monoxide gas, where the presence of the miner in the mine was held to be due to breaches of general rules 4 (1) and 7, and special rule 37, by the under-manager in charge of the mine and the fireman, inasmuch as the mine-owners had not taken, such means as were open to them of making these officials competent to deal with carbon monoxide.
Lord Kinnear said: ‘We are to consider the scope and purpose of the statute and in particular for whose benefit it is intended. Now the object of the present statute is plain. It was intended to compel mine owners to make due provision for the safety of the men working in their mines, and the persons for whose benefit all these rules are to be enforced are the persons exposed to danger. But when a duty of this kind is imposed for the benefit of particular persons, there arises at common law a correlative right in those persons who may be injured by its contravention. Therefore I think it is quite impossible to hold that the penalty clause detracts in any way from the prima facie right of the persons for whose benefit the statutory enactment has been passed to enforce the civil liability.’
The Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord Kinnear, and Lord Shaw
[1912] AC 149, [1911] UKHL 228, 1912 SC (HL) 33, 49 SLR 228, [1912] AC 149
Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887 49
Scotland
Cited – Groves v Lord Wimborne CA 1898
The court heard a case dealing with a claim for breach of a duty to fence dangerous machinery under the Act.
Held: Legislation protecting safety in the workplace gives rise to an action by a person for whom the protection was intended for . .
At SCS – Black v The Fife Coal Co, Ltd SCS 24-Nov-1908
. .
Cited – Ziemniak v ETPM Deep Sea Ltd CA 7-May-2003
A seaman was injured taking part in a safety drill aboard ship. The defendant had been found not to be negligent, but the claimant alleged breach of statutory duty under the Regulations.
Held: Groves v Wimborne clearly established that . .
Cited – Campbell v Gordon SC 6-Jul-2016
The employee was injured at work, but in a way excluded from the employers insurance cover. He now sought to make the sole company director liable, hoping in term to take action against the director’s insurance brokers for negligence, the director . .
Dictum Approved – Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd HL 1949
The Act required the occupier of a licensed racetrack to take all steps necessary to secure that, so long as a totalisator was being lawfully operated on the track, there was available for bookmakers space on the track where they could conveniently . .
Dictum Approved – Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) HL 1-Apr-1981
No General Liability in Tort for Wrongful Acts
The plaintiff had previously constructed an oil supply pipeline from Beira to Mozambique. After Rhodesia declared unilateral independence, it became a criminal offence to supply to Rhodesia without a licence. The plaintiff ceased supply as required, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619220
The appellant in this case was in the employment of the respondents, and as the result of an accident received injuries which entitled him to compensation, the amount of which was settled in an agreement in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 58). On an application by the respondents to the County Court Judge to review the agreement, evidence being forthcoming that the appellant had completely recovered, the latter granted an order terminating the agreement. This appeal was brought on the grounds that the County Court Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in terminating the agreement, or alternatively that the agreement was an attempt to contract out of the Act, and therefore void.
The Court of Appeal ( Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Fletcher-Moulton, and Farwell, L.JJ.) affirmed.
Held:
A registered agreement between employer and employed, under which the employed accepts a certain weekly payment in discharge of the employer’s liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 ‘until ended, diminished, increased, or redeemed’ by an order of the arbiter, is legal. Technically such an agreement cannot be terminated by the arbiter, though he may end permanently, and not merely temporarily, the payments.
Lord Chancellor (Earl Loreburn), Lords Atkinson, Shaw, and Mersey
[1912] UKHL 1020, 49 SLR 1020
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
England and Wales
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619232
(Judgment) Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers – Directive 2006/42 / EC – Safeguard clause – National measure prohibiting the placing on the market of a pressure washer – Essential health and safety requirements – Commission decision declaring the measure justified – Obligation to state reasons – Equality of treatment
ECLI: EU: T: 2018: 246, [2018] EUECJ T-168/16
European
Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609510
Social Policy – Protection of Safety and Health of Workers – Opinion – Social policy – Protection of safety and health of workers – Directive 92/85/EEC – Article 7 – whether ‘night work’ covers shift work where the worker concerned performs her duties during the night – Worker who is breastfeeding – Assessment of working conditions challenged by the worker concerned – Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC – Burden of proof – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of sex
ECLI:EU:C:2018:289, [2018] EUECJ C-41/17 – O
European
Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609310
Jeremy Baker J
[2018] EWHC 810 (QB), [2018] WLR(D) 226
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
England and Wales
Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609114
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 responsibility to a competent 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.’
Times 31-Dec-1994, [1995] IRLR 310, [1995] ICR 586, [1995] 1 WLR 1356
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 40
England and Wales
Considered – Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass HL 31-Mar-1971
Identification of Company’s Directing Mind
In a prosecution under the 1968 Act, the court discussed how to identify the directing mind and will of a company, and whether employees remained liable when proper instructions had been given to those in charge of a local store.
Held: ‘In the . .
Applied – Regina v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum CA 26-May-1993
The appellants were convicted of failing to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, persons not in their employment were not exposed to risks to their health and safety. One of their buildings . .
Applied – Regina v Associated Octel Ltd CACD 3-Aug-1994
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 . .
Cited – Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
Cited – Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd CA 10-Feb-2009
Harassment to Criminal Level needed to Convict
The claimant had been a customer of the defendant, but had moved to another supplier. She was then subjected to a constant stream of threatening letters which she could not stop despite re-assurances and complaints. The defendant now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86213
An employer may be liable for damages for passive smoking if the claim is pleaded correctly.
Times 22-Apr-1997
Offices Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 7
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85639
Repetitive Strain Injury is not a sufficiently well recognised medical condition to found an action.
Times 10-Nov-1993, Independent 02-Nov-1993
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85642
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.
Times 29-Mar-2000
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 (1994 No 3140)
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85442
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.
Times 08-Jul-1994, Ind Summary 25-Jul-1994
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 4(1)(b)
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83881
An employer’s duties to provide a safe workplace exists despite the lack of forseeability of any accident of the type which occurred.
Times 29-Sep-1995, [1995] SC 518
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83328
Window was to be cleaned from the inside where so designed, and not from the sill. Employer’s were liable.
Times 03-Nov-1994
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82786
The applicant had to show that her injuries arose from the use of a ‘hand held vibrating tool.’ The tool did not itself vibrate, but its use involved resting her hands on a vibrating surface, so as to cause the tool to vibrate. She came to suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.
Held: The source of the vibration was not crucial to the claim, and therefore it succeeded.
Times 02-Feb-2001
Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985 No 967, Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
England and Wales
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82491
Health and Safety summons was not duplicitous despite absence of detailed allegation.
Times 09-Dec-1996
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2(1) 2(2)
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81293
A forklift truck can be ‘place’ within Act despite being moveable.
Times 04-Nov-1994
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81091
Claim for damages for personal injury, loss and damage sustained during the course of employment at the defendant’s Royal Opera House as a musician.
Held: The claim succeeded.
[2018] EWHC 687 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606878
(Judgment) REACH – Fee payable for the registration of a substance – Reduction granted to SMEs – Verification by ECHA of the declaration on the size of the undertaking – Decision imposing an administrative right – Recommendation 2003/361 / EC – Exceeding financial ceilings – Concept of ‘related undertaking
T-855/16, [2018] EUECJ T-855/16
European
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606007
The company appealed against sentence after a worker died following an accident while working at the defendant’s premises.
Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Teare, Kerr JJ
[2017] EWCA Crim 2186
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601870
The company appealed from very substantial fines imposed after serious incidents involving breaches of Health and Safety Regulations.
F#Gross LJ, Jefford DBE J, Aubrey QC HHJ
[2017] EWCA Crim 704
England and Wales
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588235
Social policy – Directive 92/85/EEC – Protection of the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding – Articles 5(2) and 11(1) – Worker temporarily transferred to another job during her pregnancy – Compulsory transfer because of a risk to her safety or health and that of her child – Pay less than the average pay received before the transfer – Previous pay made up of a basic salary and various supplementary allowances – Calculation of the salary to which a pregnant worker is entitled during the period of her temporary transfer
[2010] EUECJ C-471/08, [2011] 1 CMLR 8, [2011] ICR 99, [2011] CEC 494, [2010] ECR I-6533
European
Opinion – Parviainen (Social Policy) ECJ 17-Dec-2009
ECJ (Opinion) Social policy Protection of the safety and health of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding’ Directive 92/85 / EEC Articles 5 and 11 (1) Maintenance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584521
ECJ (Research and Technological Development Research and Technological Development Research and Technological Development – Order) Interim measures – REACH – Fee payable for the registration of a substance – Discount granted to micro, small and medium enterprises – Decision imposing an administrative fee and additional fee – Application for stay of execution – Lack of urgency
ECLI:EU:T:2017:155, [2017] EUECJ T-855/16 – CO
European
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580704
The plaintiff’s husband had worked as a lorry driver transporting lead oxide waste. She had washed his overall each day, and had so been exposed to the lead oxide.
Held: There was no liability to the wife of an employee suffering exposure to lead dust after handling her husband’s contaminated clothes. It was not foreseeable that the extent of exposure to a spouse would be so great as to create a risk. The exposure of the husband himself had been not such as to give rise to liability.
Gazette 15-Apr-1992, [1992] ICR 530
Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980 (1980 No 1248) 8
England and Wales
Updated: 25 February 2022; Ref: scu.81350
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 2002/15/EC – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Organisation of working time – Road transport – Mobile worker – Self-employed driver – Concept – Inadmissibility
ECLI:EU:C:2017:158, [2017] EUECJ C-97/16
European
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579683
Appeal against the dismissal of a claim for damages in respect of injuries sustained by him when he fell from a ladder, while carrying out decorating work.
Patten, Sales, David Richards LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 125
England and Wales
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578203
Claim for asbestos exposure related injury by former steeplejack.
David Pittaway QC
[2017] EWHC 149 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573860
David Pittaway QC
[2016] EWHC 3252 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572644
Jay J
[2016] EWHC 3276 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572639
