12
|
P a g e
In Byers v Head Wrightson and Co Ltd (1961) it was held that greater precautions are
necessary when dealing with young or inexperienced workers. In Paris v Stepney
Borough Council (1951) it was held that the Council had a greater duty of care towards
the remaining eye of a one-eyed man.
However, it should always be kept firmly in mind that the existence of a duty of care
does not automatically mean that that person is always liable for any losses that may
occur. All that is required is that the person owing the duty of care does all that a
reasonable person would do in the circumstances to satisfy that duty of care. A key test
being, was the injury suffered foreseeable? Where the answer is yes, the next question
would be what would a reasonable person have done to prevent this foreseeable injury?
With regard to the master-servant relationship, the employer duty of care only extends
to cover employees acting within the course of their employment and as a reasonable
employee would act. Much legal ink has been spilled over these two points and we can
only touch upon some of the key parameters in this brief discussion.
Travelling to and from work is not normally held to be within the course of employment
(
although it may be if you are paid travelling expenses from home rather than from your
workplace), whereas travelling between sites on company business will normally be
held to be part of the course of your employment. Using the company's equipment to
repair parts for your car during the lunch-break will not normally be regarded as part of
the course of your employment, unless your employer is aware that you are doing it and
has condoned your actions by not taking precautions to stop it (putting up a sign will
probably be held by the court not to be sufficient; a reasonable employer would have
taken steps to isolate the machine physically!).
Again, you will note, it is the test of foreseeability which is crucial. The court will not
judge whether the employer did foresee the likelihood of injury, but rather whether a
reasonable employer would have foreseen such likelihood and, if so, what actions such a
reasonable employer would have taken to prevent the likelihood from becoming a
reality.
Responsibilities of employees: it should be borne in mind that the duty of care created
by the master-servant relationship operates in both directions. As well as placing a duty
of care upon employers to act as a reasonable employer with regard to the health and
safety of their employees, it also places a duty of care upon employees to act as a
reasonable employee would act and not to cause their employer loss.
This was established in the case of Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd (1957)
where a father and son were working together. The father was injured and successfully
made a claim against the employer. The employer’s insurance company then made a
successful claim against the son, holding him responsible for their losses. The
