EMPLOYERS LIABILITY

Q1) Furnace Ltd., producers of steel and metals, employ a number of workers in their foundry. Their job
carries the danger of injury from splattering molten metal which they pull from the furnaces. Statutory
regulations require that all foundry workers shall wear goggles when working in the foundry. The
workers at Furnace Ltd. have always been provided with goggles as a safety measure, but many remove
them when they steam up and subsequently forget to wear them again. Simon is an employee of Furnace
Ltd. who sometimes removes his goggles when they steam up. While not wearing the goggles he receives
an injury to his eye from a splinter flying off a hammer he is using on a piece of hot metal. Had he been
wearing his goggles the injury would not have occurred. The hammer was apparently in good condition
and was bought from Carter & Co, a reputable supplier. Rashid, another employee, has complained to
Furnace Ltd. many times about the problem with the goggles, saying that he feels very unsafe when he is
trying to do his job. He has recently begun to have panic attacks about going into the foundry and his
doctor has recommended that he take a month off in order to recover from stress. Advise the parties.
2 wrkers – simon personal injury – rashid psychiatric injury doc- breach -because of breach harm accured
–
Doc – murphy Caparo – incremental.
Empl liability – initially law strict emp did not owe duty of care to emplee – doctrine of common
employment applies – voluntary assumption of res – if emplee takes a job then he himself is responsible
for injuries – worker rights and benefits were not of concern in these times.
Landmark decision Wilson -for the first time concept was introduced of non delegatable duty of care –
content of the duty that had been introduced by cases after this = provide competent staff, adequate
material to their emplee, proper system of work supervision too and safe place of work
Certainstatutory rukles. – health and safety at work empl will be liable for rbeach of statutory duty s69 an
action of negligence in laos possible if regulation are mentioned forst a tort action has to be made then a
civil claim .
Simon
1)adequate material hammer not good -
2)system of work – not steam up bad product provided -masks not provided – no supervision
Rashid
Told emp many times duty of care
BREACH
Standard of care -average employer of a foundry – seriousness of the injury in the foundry, likelihood
more, cost of the mask at the expense of human injury v less
BUT FOR -causation pass – RASHID
But for – causation pass – legal causation – fail – could stop working – negligence less – break chain? –
no
DAMAGES
Only given if rznable – type and way seeable – reduced damages -SIMON bec both at fault
RASHID – forseeable and compensated fully.
Q2) Sandy Lane is a care home for the elderly, owned and operated by Fatima. Dave, Kim and Theresa
are care assistants who work closely with the vulnerable residents. Statutory regulations stipulate a
rigorous hand hygiene procedure and that specific personal protective equipment (PPE)
must be provided for, and worn by, the staff. One key aspect of this statutory obligation,
imposed on both employer and employee, is the provision and undertaking of staff training
on hygiene and usage of PPE. Dave and Kim have been trained, as required. However, in the six
months since she joined the staff at Sandy Lane, Theresa has declined to attend the training
sessions and her inadequate hand-washing is causing concern amongst other staff. Kim has
recently suffered from a stomach upset which she is certain that she contracted from
Theresa, who was ill with it earlier . Fatima has had difficulty in sourcing face masks of
the correct standard and so has suggested that the staff bring their own masks from home.
Dave has now tested
positive for a highly contagious virus . Kim finds that the
stress of working without adequate PPE is aggravating the anxiety
condition which she has suffered from for many years. Advise the parties.

Ssummary of facts

Doc -caparo – cases -EVERY QUESTION almost -incremantal approach emploeyrs towards employees
did not exist Old law – history wagera how employers were never liable – law changed land mark
decision WILSON -non delegatable duty of care towards employees.
1 competent staff
2 adequate material
3 system of work
4 safe environment
In our case Theresa – employer had the duty to ensure that Theresa takes the training and they have failed
to supervise and in addition Theresa does not seem as a professional worker – duty of emp to provide
good co workers – Fatima owes kim a duty of care
Dave
Adequate equipment as simple as facemasks sjpuld be govem
Fatima owes d a doc
Kim stress
Assumption 1 if anxiety not disclosed as she has not complained
Assumption 2 if employer knew then doc will be established
BREACH
Standard of care average employer of old age home
4 points - seriousness – likelihood- cost benefit
Fire a loru employee face masks not available thenbget them how can put the responsibility to employees
v sensitive issue every nedical facility should have masks and procedure
CAUSAATION
if case masks provided then may be no virus – causation pass -legal causation pass
DAMAGES
Forseeable – not provided facemasks – forsee illness? YES
Way – airborne virus spread and handwash hygiene foreseeable way
Psychiatric injury forseeable if told.
BREACH of statutory regulations is also there and compensation for that can also be claimed under tort
law, but s69 of regulatory reform act states that breach of statutory duty can only be claimed if the
statuted states that it creates civil liability of
Kim
Upset stomach
Work stress
Dave
adequate equipment not provided -face mask

Dr Smith, that she is

Q3) Rosa is a dental receptionist. She has recently notified her employer,
pregnant and will require additional break time in order to rest . Dr Smith tells her
that he will arrange her work shifts to accommodate this but after three weeks
has not done so. Rosa asks another receptionist, Jill, to help her but Jill refuses
and begins to mock Rosa for being “weak”. Rosa is exhausted, dreads going to work and
her doctor has now advised her to take a month off in order to rest. Advise Rosa.

Q4) Marco and Dave have recently begun to work as window cleaners for Shiny Windows. Although
Marco has some experience, their supervisor, Tim, tells them that they will both require additional
training on the Shiny Windows system of working. After three weeks with Shiny Windows, the men still
have not been trained, despite reminding Tim several times. One day, Marco and Dave are working when
Dave slams a window shut on Marco’s hand, causing severe cuts and bruising. The doctor tells Marco
that he must take a month off work. Advise the parties.