Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

1

[EMPLOYERS LIABILITY]
Employers owe certain duties to their employee. These duties are derives form both common law and statutory sources. An employer has a duty in law to see that reasonable care is taken to ensure the safety of the employees; the duty is essentially the same as the usual duty of care in negligence as held in Wilsions and Clyde v English that should be noted that the employers personal duty only owed to employees and not to independent contractors who may be in the workplace or to visitors to it (Thought other duties may be owed to such individuals under the normal law of negligence or in some cases occupiers liability . !ord "right in "ilson case identified the duty as personal and non#delegable and at the time saw the duty as having (four key aspects. 1. The duty to provide competent staff. $. The duty to provide safe plant and e%uipment. &. The duty to provide a safe place of work. '. The duty to provide a safe system of work. Com e!en! S!a""# At common law an employers owes a duty to his employees to select competent employee. where an employer takes on someone without sufficient e(perience or training of a particular )ob* and as a result another worker is in)ured* the employer may be in breach of their personal duty of care towards employees. +n ,udson v -idge .anufacturing* an employer was liable for the foolish prank/practical )oke committed by one employee upon another in the course of his employment. The employer was held to be in breach of his personal duty because the employees readiness to involve himself in such pranks had been known to them for a considerable period of time and they failed to take proper steps to put an end of this pranks. An employers duty also includes protecting employees from harassment* bullying or victimi0ation by other employees. +n "ater v 1ommission of 2olice of the .etropolis* the claimant was a police officer who claimed that the police force were negligent in failing to protect her from harassment by her colleagues* after she alleged that one of them had raped her. The ,ouse of !ords confirmed that an employer who knows* or can foresee* that acts done to an employee by their colleagues* may cause physical or mental harm* and does nothing to prevent such harm* may be in breach of their duty to inured employee. P$o e$ lan! and e%&i men!# Employers have a duty to take reasonable care to provide their workers with ade%uate e%uipment* including protective devices and clothing and to maintain it all properly. +n some cases* this duty will include a responsibility to warn employees that protective e%uipment should be used. +n 3u( v 4lough .elals* the claimant was a foundry worker* who was splashed with molten metal and lost the sight of one eye. ,is employer was bound by statute to provide protective goggles and had complied with his duty* but the court held that his personal duty at common law went further than the statutory duty and re%uired him to encourage or even insist on the

$ use of protective e%uipment. ,aving failed to do so* he was in breach of his duty towards the in)ured employee. The employer may need to train employee how to use e%uipment properly .ountenay v 3ernard .atthewa and in 4mith v 3aker* a %uarry worker was hurt when stones fell on him from hoppers that crossed over the %uarry on a conveyor system. The employer was liable because the machinery was not properly maintained. 3ut in 2arkinson v !yle 4hipping 1o. here an employee was badly burned while trying to light a boiler. There was no defect in the boiler. +t was %uite safe and the employee had been properly instructed in how to light it. 4o there was no liability. The common law liability will not apply if an in)ury is caused by some latent defect (previously it was good but later it was defeated in e%uipment* which could not have been discovered by the employee concerned using reasonable care (5evie v 6ew .erton 3oard .illls !td (1787 . ,owever under the Employers !iability (5efective E%uipment Act 1797* 4ection 1(1 . if employees are in)ured in the course of their employment as a result of defective e%uipment provided by their employer and defect is due to the fault of third party the employer may be held liable even if they are no way to blame. This means that both the manufacturer and employer well be liable. The meaning of the word e%uipment is defined in 4ection 1(& of the Employers !iability (5efective E%uipment Act 1797; as including any plant and machinery vehicle aircraft and clothing The meaning of the word e%uipment was considered by the ,ouse of !ords in 1oltman v 3ibby tankers !imited +n the case a ship sank ion 17:; with the loss of all the crew. The plaintiff who represented the estate of one of the crew member bought an action against the defendant under s. 1(1 of the 1797 Act. The defendant argued that the 1797 Act was nor applicable because a ship was not e%uipment for the purpose of the Act. e%uipment is defined in s. 1(& of the Employers !iability (5efective E%uipment Act 1797; as including any plant and machinery vehicle aircraft and clothing. The ,ouse of !ords held that the purpose behind the Act was to render the employer liable of defective e%uipment of every type and adopting purposive construction of the Act* the court held that there was no reason to e(clude ships from the ambit of the Act. The need for a purposive interpretation of e%uipment was also emphasi0ed by the ,ouse of !ords in <nowles v !iverpool 1ity 1ouncil. +n that case the plaintiff suffered personal in)ury in the course of his employment when the flagstone which he was handling broke. The defendants his employers argued that the flagstone was not e%uipment but was material upon which the employee used e%uipment. The court held that it was necessary to adopt a broad approach to the construction of the Act. ,ere the employer was liable. A sa"e la'e o" (o$)# Employer must take reasonable steps to ensure a safe place of work* it should be noted that this obligation is not an absolute one but is one which demands that the employer take reasonable steps to provide a safe place of work.

& +n !atimer v AE1 (178& * an employee was in)ured when slipping on a greasy patch on the factory floor following floor damage. The employer was not liable having done everything practicable to ensure that the floor was safe for use. At one time it was thought that an employer owed no duty to provide a safe place of work* as the place is not under his control* but in the case of "ilson v Tyneside "indow 1leaning !td (178: * the court established that the duty of care remains* though the standard of care re%uired may be lower where the place of works is not under employers control. ,ere in that case window cleaners ware in)ured while working on a clients premises. The employer had done everything within his capacity to ensure that the men were safe so could not be liable. Sa"e sys!em o" (o$)# The employer is also under a duty to provide his employees with a safe system of work and what constitutes a 4afe system of work depends on fact of each case. +n =eneral 1leaning 1ontractors v 1hristmas where the employees was cleaning the upper windows* a window fell on his finger and he fell to the ground and suffered various in)uries. +t was held that the defendants could not have provided the plaintiff with safety ropes as there was nothing in the building to which they could have been attached the employer was liable as the defendant had failed to supply a safe system of work. +n .ulchay v .inistry of 5efence where the court held that the defendants had no duty to maintain a safe system of work in battle conditions in a war 0one area. +n 2ape v 1umbria 1ounty 1ouncil where the claimant affected dermatitis (skin disease as a result of contracts of cleaning product. ,is employers had provided protective gloves but nevertheless held liable for breach of their duty towards the employee because they had failed to warn cleaning staff about the dangers of e(posing. +n >raser v "inchester ,ealth Authority where the claimant was a $1 year old* support worker* employed by the health authority. 4he was burnt when she attempted to change a gas cylinder near a lit candle. 4he had not been given any training in using the e%uipments nor instruction how to use it. The health argued that they were not negligence. +n this fact* it is clear to us that the degree of care vary in different circumstances where a worker is skilled and e(perienced. The 1laimants ine(perienced meant that she should have been given some instruction. Em loye$s Lia*ili!y and Psy'hia!$i' In+&$y# The duty of employer to the employee does not merely physical safe but also e(tends to his mental condition. +n "alker v 6orthumberland 1ounty 1ouncil where the ,igh 1ourt held that where it is reasonably foreseeable that an employee must suffer a nervous breakdown because of the stress and pressure of his workload* the is under a duty of care. +n the fact? where the claimant was employed by the council to manage four teams of social workers in an area with a high proportion of children at risk. +n 17:9 due to stress and pressure of work* he had a nervous breakdown and was sick for three

' months. "hen he went back to work* the council agreed to provide assistance to reduce his workload but this was not properly done and sis months later he had another breakdown and unable to carry on the )ob. ,e sued for negligence and it was held that the council was liable for the second breakdown* once first breakdown happened* it was foreseeable that the same occurrence may happen. Em loye$s Lia*ili!y and E'onomi' Loss# The courts have also stated that in e(ceptional cases the employers may have a duty not to cause economic loss to employees. +n 4cally v 4outhern ,ealth and 4ocial 4ervice 3oard where the employer was found negligent in failing to advice the employees that he was entitled to e(ercise valuable pension options. +n 1rossley v >aithful ,oldings !imited where the claimant had lost certain benefits available under his employers insurance scheme* because he had resigned. ,e had not known that resigning would have this effect but his employer had known and still advised him to resign. The 1ourt of Appeal re)ected this idea and concluded that they did not have a duty to give such advice. They had a duty to takes reasonable care in giving that advice and they did not breached their duties.

,e"enses# @olenti non fit in)uria? where the employee willingly takes the risk then the employer will not be liable. +n 4mith v 3aker the ,ouse of !ords held that the mere fact that the employee had continued to wok in dangerous circumstances did not mean that the employee was volens because knowledge of the danger is not as consenting to the risk of danger. 1ontributory 6egligence? 4ection 1(1 of the !aw reform (1ontributory 6egligence Act 17'8 is also applicable in they are of Accupiers !iability. +n the case of 3u( v 4lough .etals* the damages payable to plaintiff employee fell to be reduced '; percent on the ground that the employee was guilty of contributory negligence.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen