52
|
P a g e
The stairs in a building that was being erected had no hand- rail. Corn, who was
employed by the defendants as a glazier, was descending the stairs carrying a sheet of
glass measuring about 5’ by 2’ft 6”. It required the use of both arms. He was holding the
sheet in the crook of his right arm, and was steadying it with his left arm. He over-
balanced and fell over the side of the stairs and was injured. There was no handrail on
the stairway.
A distinction is to be drawn between a "hand-rail" as prescribed by the Building (Safety,
Health and Welfare) Regulations 1948 Reg. 27(1), and "guard-rails" required to be
provided by Reg. 27(2). A handrail connotes a rail that can be gripped by the hand. Such
a rail need not necessarily act as a physical barrier.
Held, although there was a breach of Reg. 27(1) the defendants were not liable, because
Corn had failed to prove that his injury was caused by the defendants' breach of
statutory duty.
Note
It was shown that, as both of his hands were involved in holding the glass, a handrail
would not have been of use to him anyway. It was held, the absence of the handrail was
not the cause of the injury.
Davie v New Merton Board Mills Limited [1958] – employer not liable where
injury results from latent defect in tools or equipment (led to, and remedied by,
Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969)
Davie -v- New Merton Board Mills Ltd; 1959
The employer provided an employee with a simple metal tool with no apparent defect,
which had, in fact, been manufactured to excessive hardness, as the result of negligent
heat treatment by the manufacturer. That was a defect not discoverable, other than by
testing of a kind which an employer could not reasonably have been expected to
undertake, before issuing the tool to an employee.
Held: In those circumstances, the employer was not liable to the employee for the
consequences of the manufacturer’s negligence.
Lord Simonds said that the employers were not in breach of a duty to provide safe plant
and equipment to their employees where they purchased tools from well-known
makers which subsequently were revealed to be defective, but were entitled to assume
they were proper for use.
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] – the neighbour principle; reasonable care; duty of
manufacturer to end-user
Donoghue v Stevenson
[1932]
is a foundational case i
an
by the
It created the modern concept of
by setting out
general principles whereby one person would owe another person a
