Employer\'s Liability Table of Cases PDF

Preview

Summary

Priestly v Fowler Latimer v AEC Ltd Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Pape v Cumbria CC Nolan v Dental Manufacturing General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas Cummings v Sir William Arral P injured wheel hit P as overloaded fellow employee CLAIM FAILED both employees ...

Description

Priestly v Fowler

   

Latimer v AEC Ltd

    

Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd

  

Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co

      

Pape v Cumbria CC

   

Nolan v Dental Manufacturing

 

General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas

    

Cummings v Sir William Arral

 

P injured = wheel hit P as overloaded by fellow employee CLAIM FAILED = both employees were employed by the same employer as person who had loaded the van Worried about flood of claims = collusion where employees would say they were injured but were not injured Could not sure if employed by same person who caused injuries Heavy rainfall flooded factory = mixed with oily liquid = slippery D put sawdust on majority of floor = insufficient to cover the whole floor C slipped on untreated part = broke ankle NOT LIABLE = done what was reasonably expected of them Not necessary on further costly and inconvenient measures = close down factory Employee blinded in one eye by metal = negligently manufactured as too hard for its purpose Appeared to be in good condition = REJECTED CLAIM = purchased tools from a reputable supplier Causation = employee needs to prove on a balance of probabilities defect was due to fault against the 3rd party Employee engaged in practical jokes = told off but did not stop Tripped up C= injured = argued should not be liable because was not employed to be a joker Joke was NOT ACTING IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT = was not doing his job Employer had a PRIMARY COMMON LAW DUTY to appoint competent staff If can be shown should not have been employed = FAULT Given seriousness of conduct = more to deter it Employer ought to have known about his reputation from other employees = SHOULD HAVE FIRED HIM Part-time cleaner = dermatitis whilst working with detergents and chemical cleaning products D provided with rubber gloves = did not warn her about possibility of dermatitis nor instruct her to wear them Giving gloves to cleaner = NOT ENOUGH Employer should have taken REASONABLE STEPS to ensure safety equipment properly understood and used by C D must take care to see system of safe work implemented = employees are careless about taking safety precautions Dangerous employer has to WARN THEM AND SUPPLY AND SUPERVISE wearing of protective gear = favoured towards C Employers should take into account = potential CARELESSNESS of employers Obvious danger = window cleaner stood on sill to clean outside of window might suffer injury if window closed Employer should have given employee CLEARER INSTRUCTIONS = ensure accidents don’t happen FAILED = LIABLE = not providing a safe system of work The C used their own initiative = favoured towards C D failed to supply safety harness = C fell and injured D argued would not have worn harness even if it had been supplied o Restrict C’s ability to do the job

 

John Summers v Frost

      

Yewens v Noakes

 

 

Market Investigations Ltd. v Minister of Social Security

 

       Ready Mix Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions

 



 Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society

      

NO LIABILITY = breach as D had not done what should have done in providing the safety equipment D was not the cause in fact of injury = absence of safety equipment not cause as he would not have worn it anyway Favoured towards D Machinery was not fenced off = C injured Damages under S14 Factories Act 1937 = places duty on employer to ensure dangerous machinery is appropriately fenced off for employee’s safety Duty was to provide fencing as far as possible for its continued use = C contributory negligent Unusable and uneconomic to use machine in that way NO EXCUSE = absolute duty where there is foreseeability of injury o Have to protect machinery = strict liability to ensure work equipment maintained properly Control test = Does the employer tell worker what to do and how to do it? A person was an employee if his employer has the right to control not only what work he does but the way in which that work is done Employer is subject to his employer as to manner in which shall do work = EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR HIS ACTS Large number of unskilled workers need to be told what to do = Skilled workers = more autonomy and skills = employed due to competence Economic reality test = deciding whether self-employed = Is the person who has engaged himself to perform these services performing them as a person in business on his own account? Degree of control only one of the factors: How/ when worker paid Who pays NI contributions? (deducted from employee) Who fixes time and place of work Who provides work equipment/ materials Responsibility if things go wrong? (management) Is the work integrated into the business or an accessory? Not vicarious liability = two men owned own lorries = were they employees or independent contractors CONTRACT OF SERVICE = make vehicles available for RMC all of the time; comply with company rules, cannot use vehicle for any other business than RMC, drivers not to alter vehicles CONTRACT FOR SERVICE = driver owned own vehicles and fuel, driver had responsibility to maintain vehicles, drivers free to hire another driver due to holiday or sickness, ownership and financial assets with driver INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS Members of religious organisation taught boys 170 men brought claims against Institute = sexually abused the boys Whether the Institute could be held vicariously liable for the sexual acts committed by some of the brothers? No employment contract with Institute Employer more likely to compensate = tort committed as a result of activity undertaken on behalf of employer = for their benefit Employee’s activity part of employer’s business activity = under the control of employer = AKIN TO EMPLOYMENT SUFFICIENTLY CLOSE CONNECTION between acts of abuse and Brother’s employment = VICARIOUSLY LIABLE

Cox v Ministry of Justice

 

   Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd

   

Century Insurance v N Ireland Roads

  

Rose v Plenty

  

Twine v Bean’s Express

  

Smith v Stages

  

Majrowski v Guys and St. Thomas NHS Trust

  

Prisoner working in kitchen = Home Office process of rehab have to undertake work in prison = delivery of food Prisoners helped carry food to storeroom = Mrs. Cox bent down, and prisoner dropped sack on her back = suffered injury = vicariously liable? Prisoner not an employee = relationship was AKIN TO EMPLOYMENT = VICARIOUSLY LIABLE Integrated into prisoner service under orders of Mrs. Cox = compulsory to work Prison service benefitting from work = created risk of injury Mr. Grain employed to be a warden = sexually abused some boys =Provide children with homely and caring setting Is the employee’s act so closely connected to the job for which he is employed that it would be just to hold the employer liable? CLOSE CONNECTION TEST = no guidance on type of degree of connection which would normally be regarded as sufficiently close for employer to be held vicariously liable FAIR AND JUST = VICARIOUSLY LIABLE = sexual abuse not something employee employed to do Petrol tanker delivering petrol = links pumps = insure lorries against any spillages or fire of the petrol Driver lit cigarette and causes explosion = damages car ACTING IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT = smoking not part of the job but he was working at point he started smoking Milkman specifically told by employers to deliver milk without any assistance Allowed young boy to help deliver him milk = injured Young boy sued under vicarious liability for milkman’s negligence = ACTING IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT = when negligence occurred he was doing his job at the time Employee gave life to hitchhiker = accident Hitchhiker wanted to hold employer vicariously liable for employee’s negligent driving NOT ACTING IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT = employer had specifically instructed employees not to pick up hitchhikers = NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY Employees from Midlands needed to travel to Wales to get back for Tuesday Paid 8 hours to rest and drive back = rushed through work on Monday and drove back Monday night = accident ACTING IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT = would have still been paid regardless for travelling M claimed against employer for harassing, bullying and intimidating treatment = breach of Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Homophobia = whether supervisor’s employer was vicariously liable? ACTING IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT = one employee assaulting the other = LIABLE

Mattis v Pollock

     

Maga v Trustees of Birmingham Catholic Church

   

Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets

    

Doorman working at nightclub = had altercation = C injured Doorman following and stabbed him = paraplegic Whether nightclub could be held vicariously liable? = ACTING IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT Criminal act individual choice and not what asked to do but employed due to his aggressive character Job was to guard door = continued to be in course of employment when followed him away from premises Priest befriended boy with learning difficulties = boy not religious Told boy to do multiple jobs for him = sexually abused = argued not vicariously liable as not member of congregation NOT ACTING IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT = VICARIOUSLY LIABLE = position of trust can get off boy The Priest had an opportunity to develop relationship by inviting him privately Petrol station outside super-market = employed worked in petrol station C asked for printing facilities and employee directed him = C left, and employee assaulted him (racially motivated) Morrisons = VICARIOUSLY LIABLE = job was to guard petrol kiosk and serve customers = attack was irrelevant Did not take off uniform = one extension of one act on C = ACTING IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT Gross abuse of position = should be responsible as entrusted with position...