15
|
P a g e
assuming that, where necessary, the employee has been given adequate instruction in
the use of the equipment.
Parkinson v Lyle Shipping Co [1964]
Leach v British Oxygen Co (1965)
Safe System of Working: It is a question of fact whether a particular operation requires a
system of work in the interests of safety, or whether it can reasonably be left to the
employee charged with the task. It is usually applied to work of a regular type where the
proper exercise of managerial control would specify the method of working, give
instruction on safety and encourage the use of safety devices.
Speed v Thomas Swift & Co [1943]
General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas [1952]
Although normally thought of in terms of physical safety, it is clear that the obligation to
provide a safe system of work also extends to an employee's mental health.
Petch v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1993]
Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995]
If an employee suffers psychiatric harm as a result of witnessing a 'shocking event' for
which his employer is responsible, then the ordinary rules for such claims apply. The
employee must bring himself within the category of a 'primary victim' or satisfy the
restrictive criteria applied to 'secondary victims':
White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1999]
In some cases a warning of the danger to a skilled employee will be sufficient to
discharge the employer's duty, and in others it may be reasonable to expect experienced
workers to guard against obvious dangers.
Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning Co [1958]
Baker v T. Clarke Ltd [1992)
Rozario v The Post Office [1997]
There are two aspects to the provision of a safe system of work:
1.
The devising of a system; and
2.
Its operation.
