Employer’s liability- defective equipment PDF

Preview

Summary

This document provides:Employer’s liability- Defective equipment supported by
Davie v New Merton Board Mills (1959), and Coltman v Bibby Tankers (1988) ....

Description

Defective equipment

Davie v New Merton Board Mills (1959) (now overruled by statute)

The House of Lords found the employer not liable when an employee suffered injury at work as he was using a defective tool provided by the employer. The plaintiff was using a metal tool provided by his employer which, because it had been manufactured at the incorrect temperature, was too hard to be safe to use. When the plaintiff struck his hammer against the tool a piece of metal flew into his left eye and caused blindness in that eye. Because the fault in the tool could not be detected with reasonable inspection and the employer had bought it from a reputable supplier, the employer was not held liable.

However, the effect of Davie was subsequently reversed by the Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969, s 1(1).

The position now is that if an employee is injured in the course of his employment by a defect in equipment provided by his employer and he can prove that the defect was caused by the fault of some third party (usually the manufacturer), then the employer will be liable.

Coltman v Bibby Tankers (1988)

It was claimed by the plaintiff that the ship was defectively constructed, and he argued that this constituted defects in equipment on the basis that the ship was ‘equipment’ within s 1 of the Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969. The court held that the meaning of the word ‘equipment’ was broadly defined and that for the purposes of the Act it can include ships or vessels....