• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




Click to flip

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;

24 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Black v Fife Cole

FACTS: A mining disaster led to the death of the claimant. A claim was brought by his estate. The employer was held liable for not hiring competent supervisors.

PRINCIPLE: Employers are liable where they negligently employ incompetent staff.

Bowater v Rowley Regis

FACTS: A street cleaner was injured when a horse, which was known to be a flight risk, ran off, throwing him from his cart.

PRINCIPLE: Consent (volenti) is rarely successfully argued in employer;s liability claims, as an employee is always under pressure to consent to tasks in order keep his job secure, so consent is rarely freely given.

Bux v Slough Metals

FACTS: An employee had stopped wearing safety goggles after claiming they were fogging up. The employer failed to make him wear them and were held liable when he was later blinded.

PRINCIPLE: 1. An employer has a duty to provide safe equipment and enforce its use.

2. Example of contributory negligence being used in an employers' liability scenario, leading to a 40% damages reduction.

Clifford v Charles H Challen

FACTS: The employer provided barrier cream to protect employees' skins, but the foreman encouraged them not to use it. An employee contracted dermatitis.

PRINCIPLE: The employer was liable as the employee had been encouraged not to use the equipment provided.

COMPARE with Woods

Coltman v Bibby Tankers

FACTS: The defendant was found to have failed to provide reasonably safe equpment when a man died on their ship.

PRINCIPLE: "Equpment" has a wide meaning for employers' liability - it includes ships.

Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing

FACTS: A serial practical joker (whom the company knew about) ended up injuring another employee. The employer was held liable.

PRINCIPLE: Where a persistent prankster or bully is known about by the employer, the employer can be liable where they fail to prevent them from injuring someone.

Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority

FACTS: A doctor claimed that his employment contract caused a breach of his employer's duty by causing him to be on duty for potentially 88 hours a week.

PRINCIPLE: The employer had breached their duty to care for the health and safety of their employee. The fact that he had agreed it contractually did not prevent this.

Latimer v AEC

FACTS: An employee was injured when he slipped on a wet factory floor. Some precautions had been taken (putting down sawdust) but the only way to dry it completely would have been to cease operations.

PRINCIPLE: The standard expected of an employer is objective. They are expected to do what is reasonable to provide a safe workplace for their employees.

McDermid v Nash Dredging

FACTS: An accident on a ship occures due to the negligence of the captain.

PRINCIPLE: The duty of an employer is not delegable - the employer was responsible and could not lay the blame solely on the captain.

Mcghee v National Coal Board

FACTS: The claimant contracted a severe skin disease as a result of him working with brick dust (which was non-tortious), and having nowhere to clean the brick dust off at the end of the day (which was tortious).

PRINCIPLE: Courts are willing to utilise the material contribution approach to causation where there are multiple causes of an injury.

McWilliams v Sir William Arrol

FACTS: An employee was not provided with a harness, but would not have worn it even if he had been (when constructing steel frames). He fell, but the reach (not providing a harness) was not the cause of the injury.

PRINCIPLE: Applied the "but for" test to employers' liability: but for the employer failing to provide a harness, would the employee have been injured? In this case, the answer was "yes", as he would not have worn the harness anyway.

Mullaney v Cc of West Midlands Police

FACTS: A policeman was injured when he was physically assaulted during an operation and another policeman failed to come to his aid. The police were held liable.

PRINCIPLE: Exampleof a breach of a duty to provide a safe system of work. The police ought to have provided the officer with back-up.

Pape v Cumbria County Council

FACTS: A cleaner was given gloves but not told to wear them. She didn't and later contracted a severe skin condition. The council were held liable for her illness.

PRINCIPLE: A safe system of work includes being informed of all risks, and ties in to providing safe equipment and enforcing its use.

APPLIED Bux v Slough Metals

Rahman v Arearose

FACTS: An employee was assaulted at work, causing serious harm, and then suffered a negligent operation, causing him further harm.

PRINCIPLE: Any damage that is reasonably foreseeable can be claimed for, including that arising through later negligence.

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister for Pensions

FACTS: A driver paid for his lorry, but had company uniform, colours and a salary. The court had to decide (to establish whether national insurance contributions were due) whether he was an employee or a contractor.

PRINCIPLE: Established the " economic reality" test, which states that the court must look to the nature of the relationship between the individual and the potential employer to determine whether there is an employment relationship.

Smith v Charles Baker and Sons

FACTS: The claimant was injured on a construction site where a crane dropped a stone on him.

PRINCIPLE: The employer was liable for breaching the duty to provide reasonably safe premises. "Premises" includes anything happening anywhere on the land in question.

Smith v Swift

FACTS: The claimant was injured while unloading cargo from a ship. A safety rail was not properly in place and cargo fell onto him.

PRINCIPLE: A breach of the duty to provide a "safe system" of work. The company had failed to follow their own procedures.

The Wagon Mound (No.1)

FACTS: The defendant;s ship negligently spilled oil into Sydney Harbour. Later, welding on another ship sparked, and set fire to the oil. The fire caused substantial damage to the wharf and other vessels.

PRINCIPLE: A claimant can recover for all damage that is reasonably foreseeable.

Walker v Northumberland County Council

FACTS: The claimant suffered a metal breakdown as a result of the demands of his work and the lack of support provided to him.

PRINCIPLE: Reasonable foreseeability for employers' liability can extend to psychiatric damage.

Warner Holidays v Secretary of State for Social Services

FACTS: Warner Holidays argued that it was not liable for national insurance contributions for its holiday camp entertainers. It claimed they were contractors. Their appeal failed.

PRINCIPLE: Expanded the list of factors to be considered in using the economic reality test from Ready Mized Concrete.

APPLIED Ready Mixed Concrete

Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English

FACTS: Mr English was crushed in a mine shaft by a mine shaft by a mine car after the haulage system was started. The employer had delegated the duty of establishing systems to ensure the safety of its staff.

PRINCIPLE: The duty of an employer is to provide competent staff, safe premises and equipment and safe systems of work - it is not a delegable duty.

Wilson v Tyneside Cleaning

FACTS: A window cleaner was injured on a third party's premises. The employer was not held liable.

PRINCIPLE: Although an employer who sends out his employee still has a duty to provide a safe work environment, they have less control over the environments of third parties, so less is expected of them in that respect.

Woods v Durable Suites

FACTS: A workman was encouraged to use the barrier cream provided to protect his skin, and was injured after not doing so. The employer was held not to be liable.

PRINCIPLE: 1. Employees are obliged to take reasonable care. Their employer is not expected to supervise them constantly, just to take reasonable steps.

2. The unreasonableness of an employee can be a novus actus interveniens, although courts are likely to prefer to apply contributory negligence to cover such situations.

Yorkshire Traction v Walter Searby

FACTS: A bus driver was assaulted by a member of the public. He claimed that the employer should have provided a screen between drivers and passengers.

PRINCIPLE: The employer was held to have acted reasonably in providing a safe system of work, so had not breached their duty by not providing a screen.