How Did George Brande Millar's Failure To Be Acquired
1. [5]
In 1945, George Danse Millar is killed while working in Galashiels Gas Co ., Ld’s workplace while working with a lift.
If the mechanism of the lift was in efficient working order it was impossible for theft to move while any one of the gates was open.
When Millar was temporarily away from the lift the braking mechanism did not work properly and as a result the left moved upwards causing the accident.
The Factories Act, 1937 states that “Every…lift shall be …properly maintained”
No explanation for the failure of the lift was found.
2. [20]
They alleged that they should not be held liable because: if the appeal was dismissed it would go further than the outcome of any previous cases regarding the safety of workmen and go beyond …show more content…
Caswell v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ld. and Lewis v. Denye. they interpreted the statutory language to mean that the word "properly" shows that the duty is restricted to something worse than a complete quality. If the word “properly” wasn’t in the section it would create an absolute duty its inclusion could not make the obligation become greater and so must lessen …show more content…
They are not obliged to make sure the lift shall always be in efficient working order but they are obliged to take all necessary steps to guarantee that it is in efficient working order and that is what the appellant did.
The respondent cannot succeed unless she can identify a particular step which the appellants did not do to prevent the accident. An employer has never been held accountable under the Factory Acts for an problem that can’t be prevented.
They said the respondent must pinpoint the lifts defect that prevented the lift from being in efficient working order to establish a breach of the statue.
They referred to cases such as Smith v. Cammell Laird & Co., Ld., and stated the word "properly" is absent from the statutory provision dealt with. As well as this the appellants lawyer alleged the reference by Lord Atkin to "a specified activity" meaning that the pursuer must specify the act or omission which caused the breach of the
In 1945, George Danse Millar is killed while working in Galashiels Gas Co ., Ld’s workplace while working with a lift.
If the mechanism of the lift was in efficient working order it was impossible for theft to move while any one of the gates was open.
When Millar was temporarily away from the lift the braking mechanism did not work properly and as a result the left moved upwards causing the accident.
The Factories Act, 1937 states that “Every…lift shall be …properly maintained”
No explanation for the failure of the lift was found.
2. [20]
They alleged that they should not be held liable because: if the appeal was dismissed it would go further than the outcome of any previous cases regarding the safety of workmen and go beyond …show more content…
Caswell v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ld. and Lewis v. Denye. they interpreted the statutory language to mean that the word "properly" shows that the duty is restricted to something worse than a complete quality. If the word “properly” wasn’t in the section it would create an absolute duty its inclusion could not make the obligation become greater and so must lessen …show more content…
They are not obliged to make sure the lift shall always be in efficient working order but they are obliged to take all necessary steps to guarantee that it is in efficient working order and that is what the appellant did.
The respondent cannot succeed unless she can identify a particular step which the appellants did not do to prevent the accident. An employer has never been held accountable under the Factory Acts for an problem that can’t be prevented.
They said the respondent must pinpoint the lifts defect that prevented the lift from being in efficient working order to establish a breach of the statue.
They referred to cases such as Smith v. Cammell Laird & Co., Ld., and stated the word "properly" is absent from the statutory provision dealt with. As well as this the appellants lawyer alleged the reference by Lord Atkin to "a specified activity" meaning that the pursuer must specify the act or omission which caused the breach of the