Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1950) BC [1951] HL

Tort, negligence, duty of care, reasonableness of precautions, special duty of care.

Facts

A Local Authority employed Mr Paris as a garage mechanic. Mr Paris had lost the sight of one eye during the war. In order to loosen a stiff bolt he struck it with a hammer; a piece of metal flew off and (because he was not wearing goggles) struck him in his good eye, causing him to become totally blind. After the accident, Mr Paris successfully claimed damages for his injury but this was overturned on appeal. Mr Paris then appealed to the House of Lords.


The Decision

The probability of such an event was very small, but its consequences were very serious, his employers, knowing of his disability, should have taken extra care to provide goggles for him. The more serious the possible damage, the greater the precautions that should be taken. Stepney Borough Council owed a special duty of care to P and had been negligent in failing to supply him with goggles, even though sufficient equipment was not given to other employees.


Held, Mr Paris won


Note

Mr Paris worked in the Borough Council's trucks maintenance garage. He had been blinded in one eye during the war but had successfully managed to conceal this from his employers until he was examined by a doctor for the purposes of the Council's superannuation scheme. When it came to light that he was blind in one eye he was given two weeks notice of dismissal. The accident happened two days before he was due to leave.

Its worth remembering this is 1950's in terms of employment law

www.she.ltd.uk

Schwalb v. Fass & Son - Practicable

Where a statutory duty or obligation is qualified soley by the word 'practicable' this implies a higher level of duty than one qualified by 'reasonably practicable'. 'Practicable' means something other than physically possible, it means that the measures must be possible in the light of curent knowledge and invention

www.she.ltd.uk

Adsett v K & L Steel Founders and Engineers Ltd

Adsett v K & L Steel Founders and Engineers Ltd [1953] 1 All ER 97

"Practicable" : stricter standard

Facts

In the this case, the employer argued that the extractor had been installed as soon as it had been thought of. The Court of Appeal held that the employer could not be held liable, as for a measure to be "practicable" meant that it had to be known about, especially by experts, so that it could be applied by people in the industry.

Notes

1.This case refers to duties placed on employers relating to "dust and fumes". The decision refers to the standard of "practicability" which it claims is that of "current knowledge and invention". Once something is found to be practicable, as in ventilation systems, it is feasible. It must then be done no matter how expensive or inconvenient. However, this also means that an employer cannot be liable for failing to use a safety device which was not invented at the time of the accident but appeared subsequent to it.

2.Where safety measures are qualified by the expression "practicable" this denotes a stricter standard than "reasonably practicable". It means "possible to be accomplished with known means or resources" or "feasible". Cost is probably not a factor to consider but no measure can be "practicable" if, at the time the employers' conduct is called into question, the measure is not known to science or if a known measure has not been thought of in connection with an existing
process.

Statute Factories Act 1937, s.47; then FA 1961, s.63

www.she.ltd.uk

Uddin v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd

Uddin v. Associated Portland Cement Mfrs. Ltd., [1965] 2 All E.R. 213

Contributory negligence; employee in unauthorised place

Facts

Uddin was employed in a cement factory run by APC Ltd. He went to a part of the factory where he was not authorised to be in order to catch a pigeon. Uddin climbed up to a position where there was unfenced machinery. As a result he became entangled with a revolving shaft and lost an arm.
Uddin brought an action for damages against his employer, alleging that the shaft was a dangerous part of machinery that should be fenced in accordance with the requirements of s14 (1) Factories Act 1937


The Decision

It made no difference that Uddin was in a part of the factory where he was not supposed to be or that he was doing something that had nothing to do with his work. It was enough that he was an employee that had suffered injury through a breach of statutory duty. It was therefore held that the defendants were in breach of their statutory obligations and that the plaintiff, who at the time of the injury was performing an act wholly outside the scope of his employment, for his own benefit and at a place to which he was not authorised to go, was not totally debarred from recovering damages. Responsibility was therefore apportioned on the basis of 20% to the defendants and 80% to the plaintiff.

Note

The case offers guidance on "safe by position" under the Factories Act and "of such construction". The Court held that it should be foreseeable, when deciding to rely on safety by position or construction rather than guarding, that a workman may be stupid in his behaviour. The fact that an employee would be acting outside the scope of his employment is not relevant to this matter. In this particular case he was supposedly trying to catch a pigeon. He climbed onto a cabinet, which housed dangerous machinery, and fell in due to it being unguarded. Although he won his action, the compensation awarded was reduced to one fifth due to contributory negligence. Useful in relation to contributory negligence, but otherwise this section of the Factories Act has been replaced by the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

www.she.ltd.uk

Armour v Skeen (1977) - section 37 of HSWA

This case ivolved section 37 of HSWA in terms of duties of directors and others.

J Armour v J Skeen (Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow) (1977) IRLR 310

Personal liability of executives : production of written safety policy

Directors, managers and secretaries (i.e. company secretaries) are personally under the duty to ensure that the company's statutory duties are performed. Failure of performance of statutory duties renders these executives open to personal prosecution.

If a safe system of work is not maintained as a result of a manager's neglect to formulate a written safety policy for his department then he is liable to prosecution.

Statute: Health and Safety at Work etc., Act 1974, s.37 (1)

The Facts

A workman fell to his death while repairing a road bridge over the River Clyde. Mr Armour was director of roads for Strathclyde Regional Council and as such the responsibility of supervising the safety of road workers was his. He had not produced a written safety policy for such work, i.e. he had not drawn up a written safe system of work.

The Decision

Mr Armour’s defence was that he was under no personal duty to carry out the Council’s statutory duties, one of which was as described above. This was rejected on the grounds that s.37 (1) of the 1974 Act imposed the personal duty to carry out the Council’s statutory duty to prepare a written safe system of work. This he had failed to do and was therefore guilty of an offence.

www.she.ltd.uk

Dewhurst v. Coventry Corportation - due diligence and young workers

A bacon slicer was used by staff. A boy of 16 was employed. The boy had an accident. The company was prosecuted and convicted for a breach of section 18(1) of OSRPA, which requires 'no young person employed to work in a premises ... shall clean any machinery used ... if doins so exposes him to risk of injury from a moving part of that or any adjacent machinery'.

www.she.ltd.uk

R v Swan Hunter Shipbuilder - safety instructions to contractors

R v Swan Hunter Shipbuilder and Telemeter Installations Ltd [1982] IRER 403

HSW ACT s2(2)(a) Failure to provide and maintain safe systems of work

HSW ACT s2(2)(c) Provision of information and instruction to its own employees

HSW ACT s3(1) Failure to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to esnure that those not in thier employ were not exposed to risk

An oxygen valve in a badly ventilated part of HMS Glasgow, then under construction, had been left open. The result was that the room had then become oxygen enriched. Swan Hunter were the main contractors but several others were involved. An employee of Telemeter Installations, working alongside Swan Hunter employees was preparing to do some arc welding. He struck the electric arc between welding rod and work piece and immediately, due to the atmosphere, a very intense fire broke out and eight men were killed.

Swan Hunter's safety officer knew of the fire risk connected with oxygen and prepared a 'blue book' for Swan Hunter employees and provided the information to their employees. However, they failed to distribute this information to Telemeter and other contractors and/or the employees of those other contractors. Swan Hunter was prosecuted and fined £3000, they appealed.

The Decision

Conviction was upheld. Swan Hunter had a duty to ensure the health and safety of its own employees by the provision of information. If the ignorance of another company’s employees places its own employees at risk then it is the company’s duty, for the protection of its own employees, to inform the employees of another of any special risks within its knowledge.

http://www.she.ltd.uk/