54
|
P a g e
are experienced and might, if they were in the position of an employer, be able to lay
down a reasonably safe system of work themselves. Workmen are not in the position of
employers. Their duties are not performed in the calm atmosphere of a board room
with the advice of experts. They have to make their decisions on narrow window sills
and other places of danger and in circumstances in which the dangers are obscured by
repetition.
The risk that sashes may unexpectedly close, as the sashes in this case appear to have
done, may not happen very often, but when it does, if the workman is steadying himself
by a handhold, his fall is almost certain. If the possibility is faced the risk is obvious. If
both sashes are closed there is no longer the handhold by which the workman steadies
himself. If either sash is kept open the handhold is available and, on the evidence in this
case, is, in my opinion, reasonably safe. But the problem is one for the employer to solve
and should not, in my opinion, be left to the workman. It can be solved by general orders
and the provision of appropriate appliances.’
Lord Reid said: ‘The question then is whether it is the duty of the appellants to instruct
their servants what precautions they ought to take and to take reasonable steps to see
that those instructions are carried out. On that matter the appellants say that their men
are skilled men who are well aware of the dangers involved and as well able as the
appellants to devise and take any necessary precautions. That may be so but, in my
opinion, it is not a sufficient answer. Where the problem varies from job to job it may be
reasonable to leave a great deal to the man in charge, but the danger in this case is one
which is constantly found, and it calls for a system to meet it. Where a practice of
ignoring an obvious danger has grown up I do not think that it is reasonable to expect
an individual workman to take the initiative in devising and using precautions. It is the
duty of the employer to consider the situation, to devise a suitable system, to instruct
his men what they must do and to supply any implements that may be required.’
Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd [1957] – employer’s duty to provide
competent fellow employees; issue of horseplay at work- ICI v Shatwell [1965] –
volenti non fit injuria and sole fault of claimant as defences in employer’s liability
cases
This case relates to practical jokes and horseplay in the workplace and examines the
employer's duty to provide competent fellow employees. Hudson was employed by
Ridge Manufacturing (RMC). During the course of his employment, he was injured as a
result of a practical joke played on him by a fellow employee.
The evidence showed that Hudson's colleague had been in the habit of indulging in dan-
gerous horseplay for the previous four years and had been warned about his unac-
ceptable behaviour by his employer on several occasions.
The court held that the employer was liable to Hudson for his injuries on the basis that
it had failed to curb the co-worker's horseplay even though, in one case, another em-
ployee had suffered a broken wrist after being pulled back around the neck by the co-
worker, causing the employee to fall onto his wrist.
