(I) One of the machine operators, Aron, suffered serious injuries to his hand when the machine he was working on jammed and pulled his hand into it. It had not been regularly serviced as was required.
It could be assumed that Aron didn’t take due care when handling the machine he was working on however with Theo being his employer Aron was owed a duty of care. The term for this is common law whereby all employers have a duty of care imposed on them to protect their employees. Due to the fact Aron injured himself working on machinery that had not been serviced regularly; Theo didn’t protect his employee with enough attention. There are legislations protecting employees in a workplace. This is the Health And Safety Act 1974 (HSWA) this act …show more content…
The common duty of care is a duty is to take care off all circumstances so that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose of which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.
Children
The occupiers liability act 1957 allows children to be less safe than adults and occupiers must be aware of this. If children are known to be visitors, special measures may have to be taken to ensure their safety. A case from 1922 established a common law tort from the appeal court:
Glasgow corporation v Taylor a local park had a shrub that possessed berries looking like cherries. A child picked and ate the berries and as a result was poisoned and died. The court felt that the corporation should have taken necessary measures to prevent children from acquiring the poisoned fruit. The berries may have been seen as an allurement to which the child was attracted to.
Employees
In section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 specifically states that when a person is in the workplace and doing his work, that person will not only appreciate the special risks associated with his work but will also guard against them. This means that the occupier will be free to leave the employee to do their work and will not have a higher duty of care to
It could be assumed that Aron didn’t take due care when handling the machine he was working on however with Theo being his employer Aron was owed a duty of care. The term for this is common law whereby all employers have a duty of care imposed on them to protect their employees. Due to the fact Aron injured himself working on machinery that had not been serviced regularly; Theo didn’t protect his employee with enough attention. There are legislations protecting employees in a workplace. This is the Health And Safety Act 1974 (HSWA) this act …show more content…
The common duty of care is a duty is to take care off all circumstances so that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose of which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.
Children
The occupiers liability act 1957 allows children to be less safe than adults and occupiers must be aware of this. If children are known to be visitors, special measures may have to be taken to ensure their safety. A case from 1922 established a common law tort from the appeal court:
Glasgow corporation v Taylor a local park had a shrub that possessed berries looking like cherries. A child picked and ate the berries and as a result was poisoned and died. The court felt that the corporation should have taken necessary measures to prevent children from acquiring the poisoned fruit. The berries may have been seen as an allurement to which the child was attracted to.
Employees
In section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 specifically states that when a person is in the workplace and doing his work, that person will not only appreciate the special risks associated with his work but will also guard against them. This means that the occupier will be free to leave the employee to do their work and will not have a higher duty of care to