Common
Law
In an article of this length it would be impossible to deal
with the entire field of common law. Therefore, the focus is very narrow and
purely related to an employer's common law duty of care towards their employees.
Additionally, only the civil law implications of common law are considered.
To be successful in a tort of negligence action the following
has to be established:
· That the defendant
owed the claimant a duty of care.
· That the duty of care
was breached through negligence.
· That loss resulted
from the breach of the duty of care.
The burden of proof in civil cases rests with the claimant on
the balance of probabilities. However, there are two main ways in which the
claimant can gain assistance in discharging this burden of proof. Namely:
· Assistance by statute. Under the Civil Evidence Act 1968, where the
defendant has been convicted of criminal proceedings that conviction is
admissible in civil proceedings.
· Assistance at common law. Under the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, or the thing speaks for itself, the
evidential burden of proof is cast from the claimant upon the defendant.
However, three conditions must apply:
· The accident could not
have occurred without negligence.
· The defendant was in
control of the situation.
· There is an absence of
an alternative explanation by the defendant.
In Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English
(1938)
· Provision and
maintenance of a safe place of work;
· Provision and
maintenance of a safe system of work;
· Provision and
maintenance of safe plant and appliances;
· Provision of competent
fellow employees.
In addition, it was made clear, that while an employer may
delegate some of these functions to nominated employees, the employer cannot
delegate legal responsibility.
The duty of care owed by employers to their employees has
been extended over the years through case-law. Examples being:
· Galt v British Railways Board (1983).
The claimant suffered shock and consequent heart problems when the train he was
driving nearly hit two men working by the lines. The defendant was held to be
liable for not providing a lookout.
· Paine v Colne Valley Electricity Supply
Company Ltd (1938) found the employer liable after an employee was
electrocuted because a kiosk had not been properly insulated.
· Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953) found the
employer not liable after a heavy storm flooded the factory floor and a mixture
of oil and water made the floor slippery. The employer put down sand and
sawdust, but did not have enough to treat the whole of the factory in this way.
As a result the claimant was injured. It was held that the risk was not grave
enough to warrant closing down the factory.
· Ross v Tennant Caledonian Breweries Ltd
(1983) demonstrated that the fact that a system has been in place for a
period of time without accidents occurring, is not enough to demonstrate that it
is a safe system.
· Bux v Slough Metal Ltd (1974) held that
the employer had failed to provide a
reasonably safe system of work by failing to give the employee the necessary
instructions to wear the goggles provided and to enforce the wearing of them
through supervision. However, in Qualcast
(Wolverhampton) Ltd v Haynes (1959) an employee who did not wear the
protective clothing which was available failed to gain compensation as they had
chosen not to make use of it at their own risk. In Finch v Telegraph Construction and
Maintenance Company (1949) the employer was found liable for the eye injury
to the claimant, because although they had provided goggles they had not told
the employee where to find them.
· In Walker v Northumberland County Council
(1994) the duty to provide a safe system of work was extended beyond
providing a system that took reasonable measure to protect employees from
physical injury to protect employees from psychological injury as well.
· Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967) held
that it was foreseeable that a vehicle driver would suffer frostbite in an
unheated van while driving a long distance in extremely cold weather. As the van
also had cracked windows, it was held that the employer had failed to provide
suitable plant.
· Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd (1959)
led to the Employers' Liability
(Defective Equipment) Act 1969. The claimant lost his claim against his
employer following an injury from a tool with a hidden defect. It was held that
the employer was not negligent. The Act changed matters by providing that if an
employee is injured in the course of his employment as a consequence of a defect
in equipment, provided by his employer for use in connection with his business,
then that defect will be attributable to the negligence of the employer.
However, any damages paid by the employer can then be recovered from the
manufacturer or other responsible party. Knowles v Liverpool City Council(1993)
found that a defective flagstone used by the "flagger" employed by the
highway authority constituted equipment under the Act and the House of Lords
refused to draw a distinction between equipment and materials.
· Taylor v Rover Car Company Ltd (1966)
held that where an employer is aware of any defect in tools which have been
purchased from outside the company, he should withdraw them from
circulation.
· Williams v Birmingham Battery and Metal
Company (1899) held the employer liable for failing to provide the necessary
equipment, Machray v Stewarts and Lloyds
Ltd (1964) for providing insufficient equipment and Bowater v Rowley Regis Corporation (1944)
for providing defective equipment.
· Barkway v South Wales Transport Company
(1950) held that an employer must have a proper and adequate system of
inspection and testing in order that defects can be identified and reported.
Whereas, Monaghan v Rhodes and Son (1920)
held that such defects must then be remedied.
· Pearce v Round Oak Steel Works Ltd (1969)
ruled that before second-hand machinery is put into use it must be checked
to ensure that it is serviceable.
· Close v Steel Company of Wales (1962)
found that failure to erect suitable and effective guards around unfenced
machinery liable to eject parts or material, may constitute negligence at common
law irrespective of any liability for a breach of relevant regulations.
· Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Company Ltd
(1957) held that where an employer is aware that the conduct of an employee
gives rise to danger due to sky-larking, the employer is under an obligation to
take effective steps to remedy the situation. However, if the employer is
unaware that practical jokes are being played, as in Smith v Crossley Brothers (1971), he
will not be found liable as such acts fall outside of the scope of the
employer's business.
· Butler v Fife Coal Company (1912) held
that where an employer appoints an inexperienced person to carry out highly
dangerous activities, then the employer may be liable if, as a result of lack of
experience, another employee is injured.
If an employer knows, or if
a reasonable employer could have foreseen, that an individual employee is at
greater risk than an average employee, then the employer’s duty of care towards
that individual employee is correspondingly greater. In Byers v Head Wrightson and Co Ltd (1961)
it was held that greater precautions are necessary when dealing with young or
inexperienced workers. Whereas, in Paris
v Stepney Borough Council (1951)
With regard to whether the duty of care has been breached, a
key test is whether the injury suffered was foreseeable? The next test being
what would a reasonable person have been expected to have done to prevent this
foreseeable injury? What is deemed to be reasonable depending upon the
likelihood of the injury, the possible severity and the cost of doing more.
Often the test of current good practice can be applied, providing that practice
does not involve obvious folly.
The employer’s duty of care extends to cover the employee
whilst they are “within the course of their employment” and “acting as a
reasonable employee would act”. Tests for course of employment involve:
· The time of the
accident.
· The place the accident
occurred.
· What was the employee
employed to do.
· Did the employer
derive benefit from the employee's actions.
· Did an express
prohibition apply.
Defences often consider whether the injury was foreseeable and whether the defendant
did all that a reasonable person
could have been expected to have done to prevent such a foreseeable injury.
Other defences involve sole fault of the employee, the fact
that it was an inevitable accident,
that the action was carried out under statutory authority, and the necessity to allow a lesser injury to
prevent a greater injury.
Volenti non fit injuria, roughly translated as the
injured person having volunteered to place themselves at risk, is a defence
which the courts are reluctant to accept. When they do accept it, the following
tests apply:
· Lack of coercion.
· A specific risk was
involved.
· Full knowledge.
In Smith v Baker and
Sons (1891) it was held that mere knowledge of the risk was not enough, it
had to be shown that the claimant had consented to the particular thing being
done which would involve the risk and had consented to take that risk upon
himself.
The Law Reform
(Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 provides that where injury is caused by
two or more persons, the court must decide how much each person is to blame. One
of the persons involved may be held to be the injured employee.
The basic limitations period under the Limitations Act 1980 is three years from
either the date on which the cause of action accrued or the date of the
claimant's knowledge whichever is the later. However, the courts have wide
discretion and can disregard this time limit and permit actions to proceed.
Posts
