In Wilson & Clyde coal co. ltd v English it was said by Lord Wright that an employer owes a personal duty to his employee to provide a competent staff of men, adequate material and a proper system and effective supervision. Whether an employer owes a duty is a question of fact.
However this does not imposes on the employer a duty to take special care in respect of an employee who would suffer greater injury should it occur except what the employee is doing is in itself dangerous-PARIS V STEPNEY.
The plaintiff, a one-eyed man employed by the defendants, was working in conditions involving some risk of eye injury, but the likelihood of injury was not sufficient to call upon the defendants to provide goggles to a normal two-eyed workman. In the case of the plaintiff, however goggles should have been provided for, whereas the risk to a two-eyed man was of the loss of one eye, the plaintiff risked the much greater injury of total blindness. It was held that the work in itself was not a dangerous one and so the defendant were not ordinarily obliged to provide goggles as part of the system of work and that the plaintiff’s disability was not relevant to the severity of duty owed to him in that the work did not expose him to a greater risk of injury but a greater injury.
The law does not require employers to dismiss employees if it is the only way of avoiding liability-WITHERS V PERRY CHAIN.
The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant’s had to stop the job because of dermatitis due to grease contact. The employers took all precautions against contracting of the disease by providing gloves and cream against irritant in the grease. The employee contracted the dermatitis 3 times each of which she was out of the job and was re-employed on her own insistence. She was simply allergic to the grease. It was held that the employers were under no duly to discuss or to refuse to employ an adult employee who wished to do a job merely because there might be the same skin risk to the employee in doing the work
The employer owes a personal duty to provide competent workman-BLACK (BUTLER) V FIFE COAL CO LTD, HUDSON V RIDGE MANUFACTURING CO LTD.
The husband of plaintiff was killed by an outbreak of poisonous gas while working in the employment of defenders, a limited company, in a coal mine of which they were owners. In an action for damages at common law and alternatively under Employers’ Liability Act 1880 (c 42) (repealed), the sheriff-substitute found that defenders were liable inasmuch as they had failed to appoint officials competent for the working of the mine.
The employer must provide adequate appliances and tools.
The employer is not liable for defective tools provided they were procured from reputable manufacturers and the defect was not discoverable upon inspection- DAVIE V NEW MERTON BRD. MILLS.
The defendant had bought some tools with a defect not discoverable upon inspection nor was intermediate examination by the employers between the time of its manufacture and its use reasonably to be expected. The plaintiff used the tool and got injured by in his left eye. It was held that the defendants were no liable as they had taken reasonable care to provide proper appliances and were not responsible for the negligence of the manufacturers.
If the job involves special risks, the employer must provide protective materials and reasonable steps should be taken to see that they are used-CLIFFORD V CHALLEN & SONS-
The plaintiff was employed by the defendants and had to use synthetic glue in the course of his work. The glue could cause dermatitis unless a special cream was used and the arts which made contact with the glue was washed. Precautionary measures were put on the notice board and the cream was kept in the factory store to which the workmen had access. The foreman of the defendant took no steps to ensure its use by the workmen. The plaintiff contacted dermatitis. It was held that the protective cream should have been provided in the shop and a system provide where the workmen would use it according to government notice. The defendant were in breach of that duty and so liable.
The employer must protect his workers from foreseeable harm-SMITH V LEECH BRAIN;
WOODS V DURABLE SUITES– the plaintiff was an experienced workman of 56 years and had specifically be instructed by the manager to use the protective measures against synthetic glue. He did not fully observe them and as a result contracted dermatitis. It was held that the defendants had discharged their duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their workman and not to subject them to unnecessary risks and that they were under no duty to provide a foreman constantly watching and ensuring that a workman of his age and experience took precautions as he has been instructed to take.
The employer is to protect his employees from foreseeable harm- LORD PARKER IN SMITH V LEECH BRAIN & CO LTD
The employer must provide a safe system of work-KUSSASI V GHANA CARGO HANDLING.
The plaintiff, a professional driver, was employed by the defendants as a fork-lift driver. Whilst on duty driving a fork-lift, conveying bags of rice from one point to another a pallet of 36 bags of rice crashed from a crane on him. He became unconscious and was rushed to the Effia Nkwanta Hospital where he was admitted for eight days. At the time of the accident the crane was being driven by an employee of the co-defendants, the Ghana Railway and Ports Authority. The plaintiff says that the defendants failed to provide a safe system of work for their workmen for they knew that goods were likely to fall from slings of pallets on to the quay whilst they were slung over the heads of its workers engaged below without any provision being made for warning them before the goods were lowered to the quay.
It was held that a master does not provide a safe system of work by merely providing a manual especially to an illiterate workman if no responsible person on behalf of the defendants supervised the workmen. There was no supervisor present at the time of the accident. If there was one, he was negligent in the discharge of his duties. The plaintiff had to keep his attention on the load he was to collect. Meanwhile the crane driver was ready and placing other loads at a different spot at the quay. It was therefore the duty of the defendants to provide proper methods of signaling 1 and warning to the plaintiff and other workmen engaged in off-loading the rice. I hold therefore that the defendants owed a duty to provide a reasonable system of work for the plaintiff. This they failed to do.
Defenses
Contributory negligence-CLIFFORD V CHALLEN. The plaintiff was also negligent and so the damages were borne equally
Volenti non fit injuria-WITHERS V PERRY CHAIN. If the employment necessarily involves particular risks the employer would be held to have no duty to remove these risks and a workman injured in consequence of undertaking them will not recover in negligence.