Case Law Nebosh

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 179
  • Published : September 24, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
Case – British Railways board Vs Herrington

Relevance
-Trespasser duty of care
-Common humanity
-Occupiers liability act 1984

Facts
-Railway line operated by BRB ran through property open to public -Fences were in poor repair
-1965 children seen on line
-Child severely injured when he stepped on line after passing through broken fence -Plaintiff claimed damages for negligence

Ruling
-House of lords held over trespassers, a duty to take steps as common humanity to avert danger i.e. fix the fence If the presence of trespassers is known or foreseeable, step must be taken

Case – Paris Vs Stepney Borough Council

Relevance
-Duty to individuals

Facts
-Plaintiff employed by the defendants
-He only had use of one eye
-Accident resulting in loss of use of other eye
-Plaintiff claimed damages
-Defendants showed evidence that it was not usual practice to require eye protection

Decision
-The house of lords held that severity of harm would have influenced a reasonable employer -So extra duty of care for one eyed employee required use of goggles -
Case – Corn Vs Weir’s Glass

Relevance
-Injury not caused by breach of statutory duty
-Breach of statutory duty

Details
-Glazier carrying sheet of glass with both handles fell on a stairway and was injured -He sued for breach of statutory duty because no handrail was provided -He needed both hands to carry glass so handrail would not have been any use -Claim failed *The breach of statutory duty did not cause the injury*

Prove Breach of Statutory Duty requires:-
-Statute broken
-Breach caused injury
-Claimed was class of person the statute was intended to protect -The type of injury was one the statute was intended to protect -
Case – Edwards Vs National Coal Board

Relevance
-Reasonably Practicable

Details
-Edwards slipped when a section of roadway collapsed
-NCB agreed that the cost of *** up would have been prohibitive (was not justified) -NCB were found liable as cost of making safe was not great when compared to the risk

Reasonably practicable
-The quantum of risk should be applied in determining whether or not steps need to be taken to control a risk -The test is based on a scale balance where the risk is placed on one hand and the costs and sacrifice involved placed on the other hand, if the risk is grossly disproportional to the cost or vice versa, then the decisions can be made

Case – Davie Vs New Merton Board Mills

Relevance
-Provision of proper equipment
-Employers liability [Defective equipment] act 1969

Details
-Davie was injured when a defective chisel shattered [latent defect] -Employer showed that the equipment had been bought from a reputable supplier and that the injury was caused by a hidden defect over which they had no reasonable control -This was sufficient to discharge their duty

-This decision has since been overruled by statute law by the employers liability (defective equipment) act 1969

-

Case – Wilson & Clyde Coal Vs English 1938

Relevance
- Employers Duty of care

Details
-English employed by Clyde Coal
-He was crushed by haulage equipment
-Employer argued that they had discharged duty to agent (managing the mine) -House of Lords held the employer can delegate the performance of duty but not the RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DUTY Duty of care under common law

-Reasonable care of employers health and safety
-A safe place of work
-A safe system of work
-Safe plant & appliances
-Competent fellow employees
-
Case – Smith Vs Baker & Sons 1891

Relevance
-Volenti non fit injuria (person accepted the risk)
-Poor defense for negligence most workers cannot afford to terminate employment (economic pressure)

Details
-Claimant was working in a cutting, a crane used for removing stones passed its load over a workman’s head (smith) -Smith complained a number of times
-Stones then fell out of the crane injuring smith
-...
tracking img