Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
19 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Principle -Date of knowledge |
Assert v L Steel Founders Contracted Pneumoconiosis prior to 1942 when extractor fans were fitted. It was in reasonable to expect the fans to be fitted any earlier as not usual practice or invention. |
|
|
|
Principle - Reasonably Practicable |
Edwards v National Coal Board National Coal Board should have fitted the extra supports considering the high risk.
Time, effort, trouble Vs Severity of Risk. |
|
|
|
Principle - 1st liability & PUWER |
Stark v Post Office
The failure of the push bike still fell under the employers responsibility (post office) even though they had followed maintenance and defect regime. They can then counter claim against manufacturer. |
|
|
|
Principle - Maintenance sits within undertaking |
R v Associate Octel Co. ltd
RGP contractor to repair tank. Mr Cuthbert whilst using Acetone in an old container he found lying around to repair tank broke a bulb causing a flash fire.
Octel responsible under sections n 3.1
Risk assessments/Method Statements. |
|
|
|
Principle - vicarious liability. Contractor injured another. |
R v British Steeel Principle - Section 3.1 - Employers are responsible for acts or omissions of employees that may cause harm to non employees.
Gantry contractor killed when BS section engineer was supervising contractor work.
|
|
|
|
Principle - Multiple defendants |
R V Chargot and others Principle - Multiple defendants under section 2.1 for Chargot. Principle contractor Tuttle Contracting were prosecuted under section 3.1. George Ruttle MD was deemed to be a controlling. Mind and prosecuted under Section 37.
Dumper truck tipped over killing driver during car park construction. |
|
|
|
Principle - Foreseeability |
R v Hatton Traffic Management
Mr Cook and Mr Crimmins were electrocuted while moving a tower. They failed to abide by training and ignored safety notices. Hatton Traffic Management could not foresee that employees would ignore safety notices and training.
|
|
|
|
Principle - Reasonable practicable |
R v Nelson Group Services ltd.
Contracted to fit gas supplies into building sites and homes. |
|
|
|
Principle - Duty owed - Proximity |
Caparo Industries v Sockman Caparo Industries bought shares on the basis of information that was flawed. Course heard that Dickman had no duty to Caparo. |
|
|
|
Principle - Reasonably Foreseeable |
Corr v IBC Vehicles Mr Corr a maintenance engineer was struck on the right side of head by a car door when repairing a machine. He subsequently killed himself. Judge view was that the suicide was not reasonably foreseeable. |
|
|
|
Principle - Neighborhood principle |
Donohue v Stevenson Slug in beer bottle -manufacturer at fault. |
|
|
|
Principle - multiple defendants can be held accountable. |
Fairchild (widow) v Glenhaven Funeral services and others. Mr Fairchild dies from asbestosis. Mrs Fairchild sued both employers as it was impossible to know which one caused the condition. |
|
|
|
Principle - Contributory negligence |
Jones v Livix Quarries Traxcavator - hitched a lift on the rear that was against company policy. He. Was held 1/5 liable as he broke company rules. The company were still guilty as the other employee was driving wrecklessly. |
|
|
|
Principle - Reasonably practicable |
Latimer v AEC Ltd Heavy rain storms - factory flooded - all straw put down. Latimer slipped. As the weather was freak it was deemed the employer AEC had discarded their duty. |
|
|
|
Principle - Vicarious Liability |
Mersey docks and Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffith ltd. Harbour board were held vicariously liable for the crane driver they had provided who injured another as they failed to prove that the hirers had control of the relevant act. |
|
|
|
Principle - reasonable adjustment |
Paris v Stepney borough council
Employer failed to make reasonable adjustment to consider the increased risk of an employee with one eye. Mr Paris injured his one good eye as a mechanic. He was not provided goggles. |
|
|
|
Principle - reasonable foreseeable |
Sutherland v Hatton and others Mrs Hatton a school teacher suffered stress and depression forcing early retirement but had indicated it was personal issues. |
|
|
|
Principle - multiple defendants/Vicarious liability |
Viasystems ltd v Thermal Transfer ltd. Thermal transfer sub to Darwell whonsub to CAT. CATs fitter mate Mr Strang took a short cut leading to damage. As they were under instruction from Mr Horsely of Darwell and so both firms were found liable. |
|
|
|
Principle - Owner remains vicariously liable |
Wilson v Clyde Coal Mr English was injured (crushed) when the plant was put in motion when it should have been on down time 1:30 to 2pm |
|
