i)Alf has a direct relationship with the employer as he is one of the employees of Skimpy PLC and the employer owes him a duty of care. However, the company hasn’t guarded the machinery which should be one of their primary duties as it was seen in the case Close v Steel Co of Wales where all dangerous parts of machinery should be securely fenced according to the section 14 Factories Act 1961. All workers will need safety at work and the Health and Safety at work Act 1974 will ensure all employees are safe within their workplace. Breach of these duties will constitute in a criminal case as it is in Alf’s case. On the other hand this event could also be a civil case as Alf can sue Skimpy PLC for compensation for his personal injury. Alf will have to prove that the company caused the injury negligently or without taking reasonable care to avoid injuring others. Alf will also have to prove a duty of care was owed, breach of duty and damaged caused by the breach, then only will the law allow compensation. The company will be against giving compensation as they can protect themselves by saying that Alf removed the guard “contrary to instructions”. In this case Alf will clearly be affected by contributory negligence as he had removed the guard to make the job quicker causing him injury. Therefore it will be very difficult for Alf to receive compensation as it was seen in the case Close v Steel Co of Wales where Mr Close didn’t receive any compensation for his injury.
The other case that could arise is that Skimpy PLC could claim that Hitech was the reason why Alf got injured as they had guaranteed the guard couldn’t be removed. The manufacturer of the machine will owe a duty of care to Alf as it was seen in the most famous case of the English law Donughue v Stevenson case where the manufacturer owed a duty of care to Mrs Donughue and she got paid compensation. This will be a criminal case as Hitech has committed a wrong against Alf and Skimpy PLC.
The case that...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document