This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

GDL Law Notes GDL Tort Law Notes

Employers Liability Notes

Updated Employers Liability Notes

GDL Tort Law Notes

GDL Tort Law

Approximately 591 pages

A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Tort Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Employers Liability: Primary Liability

  • A non-delegable and personal duty (McDermid v Nash Dredging that the employer has to each employee individually (Paris v Stepney Borough Council)

  • Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English [1938] – HoL held that there is a general duty owed by an employer to an employee to protect employees

    • Lord Wright clarified three sub-headings of this duty:

      • 1) Provision of competent staff

      • 2) Provision of adequate and safe equipment

      • 3) Provision of a safe place of work (can be merged into 2/4)

      • 4) A proper system of adequate supervision.

    • This duty exists at common law, independent of statute.

  • The scope is limited. E.g. An employer does not necessarily owe a duty of care to protect an employee from purely economic or reputational harm (James-Bowen v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018])

  • Wilson v Tyneside Window [1958] – these subheading are for convenience, there is a great deal of overlap.

  • 1) Provision of competent staff

    • The employer has an obligation to employ reasonably competent fellow employees to work alongside the claimant. Inc monitoring and disciplining the employees.

    • Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing [1957] – C injured by fellow employee (a ‘not over-intelligent habitual practical joker) in a prank. Foreman had seen past behaviour and reprimanded employee.

      • Held that there was a breach. Where employer knew of behaviour should have taken greater steps to prevent future actions or dismissed workers.

    • Smith v Crossley [1951] – injured fellow employee in one-off practical joke. Not a serial ‘joker’. Employer not liable.

      • However, be liable under vicarious liability as was in the course of employment.

    • May be an action against employee himself is possible but likely a waste of time financially.

  • 2) Provision of adequate equipment

    • Smith v Baker [1891] per Lord Herschell

      • An employer has a “duty of taking reasonable care to provide proper appliances, and to maintain them in proper condition.”

    • This approach was deemed too generous to employer by Parliament:

      • Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969

        • Employer is liable for injury suffered resulting from defective equipment for the purposes of the employer’s business attributable to a third party.

  • 3) Provision of a safe place of work

    • An employer must take reasonable steps to see that the place of work is reasonably safe.

    • Latimer v AEC [1953] – factory flooded. Sawdust put down but claimant still slipped. Not liable as the employer had done all that was required of a reasonably competent employer. Objective standard.

    • Wilson v Tyneside Window [1958] – Window cleaner injured on third party premises. Employer liable for injuries that occur on third party premises. However the standard of care is lower.

  • 4) A safe system of work with adequate supervision

    • This includes instructions, warning, and training.

    • Employers must enforce the use of safe equipment

      • Bux v Slough Metals [1974] – stopped using safety goggles as they were fogging up. Employer failed to enforce their use.

    • Taking into account that employees often disregard their own safety

      • General Cleaning v Christmas [1958] – window...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Tort Law Notes.

More GDL Tort Law Samples