Health and Safety - 1994

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 13 cases, and was prepared on 05 January 2012.

Neill -v- Greater Glasgow Health Board [1996] SC 185; [1994] SLR 673,
1994	Scotland, Health and Safety	Casemap 1 Citers

Kinnear and Others -v- Falconfilms Nv and Others [1994] EWHC QB 1; [1996] 1 WLR 920; [1994] 3 All ER 42; [1994] ILPr 731
27 Jan 1994 QBD Phillips J	International, Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Jurisdiction
	The actor Roy Kinnear died on being thrown from a horse while making a film in Spain. His widow sought damages from the fim company who in turn sought to issue a third party notice against those involved in Spain. Held: A third party claim with a sufficient nexus may bring a main claim with Brussels Convention.
	Link[s] omitted

RMC Roadstone Products Ltd -v- Jester [1994] 4 All ER 1037
8 Feb 1994 QBD Smith J	Health and Safety	Casemap 1 Citers
	The employers engaged contractors to repair a building. The employers were going to buy new asbestos sheets for the purpose but the contractors offered to remove some from an adjacent disused factory. The employers obtained the permission of the owner. Their projects manager inspected the site with the contractors and warned them to be careful. They offered to supply the contractors with equipment. One of the contractors fell through a skylight on the roof of the disused building and was killed. The employers were charged under section 3(1) and the justices convicted. They said that it was not necessary for the employers to control the site on which the work was done to be liable. They were in a position to give specific instructions to the contractors as to how the work should be carried on. They therefore owed a duty under section 3(1). Held: The conviction was set aside. The court was "unable to accept that the mere capacity or opportunity to exercise control over an activity is enough to bring that activity within the ambit of the employer's conduct of his undertaking. Before he can say that an activity is within his conduct of his undertaking, the employer must, in my judgment, either exercise some actual control over it or be under a duty to do so. If the principal chooses to leave the independent contractor to do the work in the way he thinks fit, I consider that the work is not within the ambit of the principal's conduct of his undertaking. It is wholly the contractor's undertaking."
	Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)

Edgson -v- Vickers Plc and Another
8 Apr 1994 QBD	Health and Safety
	Dry sweeping asbestos dust was a process involving asbestos and was to be treated accordingly.

Blackman -v- C J Pryor (Earth Moving Contractors) Ltd
5 Jul 1994 QBD	Health and Safety
	Plant on floor of a pit was not covered by excavation regulations but only at the top.
	Construction (General Provisions) Regulations 1961 (1961 No 1580)

Moualem -v- Carlisle City Council
8 Jul 1994 QBD	Health and Safety
	Equipment in non-domestic premises (an indoor nursery playground) is a plant within the Act, and the Local Authority may prosecute for a breach of the regulations.
	Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 4(1)(b)

Regina -v- Associated Octel Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 1051
3 Aug 1994 CACD Stuart-Smith LJ	Health and Safety	Casemap 1 Citers
	The company was said to have failed in its duties under section 3(1) of the 1974 Act. Held: The maintenance and cleaning of a company's premises can be part of its undertaking, for which its managers are criminally responsible, even if outside contractors were used. Stuart-Smith LJ said: "If there is a risk of injury to the health and safety of the persons not employed by the employer, whether to the contractor's men or members of the public, and, a fortiori, if there is actual injury as a result of the conduct of that operation there is prima facie liability, subject to the defence of reasonable practicability."
	Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2 3(1)

Gerrard -v- Staffordshire Potteries Ltd [1994] EWCA Civ 31; [1995] PIQR 169; [1995] ICR 502
2 Nov 1994 CA	Personal Injury, Health and Safety	Casemap 1 Cites
	The plaintiff was injured when working for the defendants spraying glaze onto jars. A small foreign body was blown into her eye. She said that no eye protection had been suuplied as required by the regulations. Held. The plaintiff's appeal succeeded: "this was an operation which, when one looks at it in the round, carried with it a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury. One has only to imagine the comment of any eye surgeon if asked to watch this Plaintiff at work and asked to watch her putting her head into the booth in order to apply the glaze to the inside of the jar and then removing her head with perhaps some of the glaze adhering to her hair and complaining, as she did at times, of a gritty sensation in her eyes. "
	Factories Act 1961 29(1) - Pottery (Health and Welfare) Special Regulations 1950 - Protection of Eyes Regulations 1974
	Link[s] omitted

King -v- Smith and Another
3 Nov 1994 QBD	Health and Safety
	Window was to be cleaned from the inside where so designed, and not from the sill. Employer's were liable.

Woking Borough Council -v- BHS Plc
4 Nov 1994 QBD	Health and Safety
	Shops have obligation to record and report accidents to customers not just employees.
	Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations

Gunion -v- Roche Products Ltd
4 Nov 1994 OHCS	Health and Safety
	A forklift truck can be 'place' within Act despite being moveable.
	Factories Act 1961 29(1)

Walker -v- Northumberland County Council [1995] 1 All ER 737; [1995] IRLR 35; [1995] ICR 702; [1994] EWHC QB 2; [1995] PIQR P521
16 Nov 1994 QBD Colman J	Health and Safety, Negligence, Personal Injury	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did not receive the staff or guidance to allow him to do the work asked of him, and he took a second sick leave. He was then dismissed. He sought damages for the employer's breach of their duty of care. Held: The employer was liable in negligence for a second work stress induced nervous breakdown. There was no reason in logic why damages should not be recoverable for psychiatric damages, or why the employer should not have a duty to prevent such damage. If a duty of care is established a claimant must then also show that the steps required to deal with it were reasonable in the context, allowing for the resources available, and the risks must be substantial. By the time he returned to work it was reasonably forseeable that further injury would occur, and the authority could not operate policies which would cause injury to its staff, and the court was free to examine such policies. Given the risk, the authority should have taken steps to avoid further injury to the plaintiff. The standard of care to be expected of a reasonable local authority required that "additional assistance should be provided, if not on a permanent basis, at least until restructuring of the social services had been effected and the workload on Mr Walker thereby permanently reduced." The assistance should have been provided "notwithstanding that it could be expected to have some disruptive effect on the council's provision of services to the public."
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- British Steel Plc [1995] IRLR 310; [1995] ICR 586; [1995] 1 WLR 1356
31 Dec 1994 CACD	Health and Safety	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	British Steel employed two sub-contractors to work in moving a steel tower under their supervision. One platform fell on one of the sub-contractors, killing him. British Steel claimed they had delegated their responsibilities under the Act, and were not criminally liable. Held: A corporate employer cannot evade the strict liability imposed by the legislation by delegation of its responsibilities. Subject to the defence of having done what was reasonably practical, which meant only the measures necessary to avert risks, the section created an absolute offence, to which there was no defence that the 'directing mind' at senior level had taken all reasonable care to delegate responsibillity to a competetent and responsible person. The offence created by section 3 is subject to the reasonably practicable defence, which is for a defendant to prove on a balance of probabilities "that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty …, or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement."
	Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 40