57
|
P a g e
The definition of work equipment.
As the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is now on the statute
books, it will be interesting to see if any of the previous cases feature in any
prosecutions under this Act.
But as there is no chance of individuals (as opposed to organisations) being charged
under Act, prosecutors will still have to resort to using Section 37 of the Health and
Safety at Work (HSW) Act.
Section 37 provides that where an offence has been committed by an organisation and
is proved to have been committed with the consent (turning a blind eye) or connivance
(
between two or more persons), or to have been attributable to any neglect (by one or
more persons) on the part of any director, manager or secretary (that is, persons in
charge/in control of the organisation, known as the "controlling mind") then they shall
be guilty of that offence as the organisation and can be prosecuted.
Marshall v Gotham & Co Ltd [1954] – difference between ‘practicable’ and
‘
reasonably practicable’
Marshall v Gotham Co Ltd
[1954]
Comparison of ‘practicable’ and ‘reasonably practicable’ precautions:
Marshall, a gypsum miner was killed when a large piece of the mine’s marl roof fell on
him. The normal—and ordinarily very effective—method of guarding against falling
roof was to inspect each area for visible faults, and then to tap the roof with a long-
handled hammer; if the noise indicated that the roof was unsound, the unsound portion
was brought down before the mining proceeded. The fall that killed the plaintiff was not
detectable by this or any other means, as Lord Reid explained, in these “very rare” cases
of “slickenside,” (unusual geological condition).
M’s wife alleged a breach of statutory duty (under the Metalliferous Mines General
Regulations 1938) and claimed compensation from the employer.
The employer was not liable for a breach of statutory duty because M’s death had not
been caused by any failure by them to take reasonable steps to secure the roof.
The only way to make a roof safe from slickenside was to shore it up, and since the
condition was undetectable, every roof in the mine would have to be shored up. “There
was evidence that that was never done in gypsum mines, and that in this mine the cost
of doing so would have been so great as to make the carrying on of the mine
impossible.” However, the evidence also showed that after the accident, additional
precautions were taken in the area near the accident: a hydraulic prop was used unless
the roof was thought to be thin, in which event that area was bypassed. The plaintiff
argued that it would have been reasonably practicable for the defendants to use props
