58
|
P a g e
(
as they did after the accident). The trial judge found no negligence at common law, but
ruled in the plaintiff’s favour on the statutory claim, reasoning that hydraulic props
should have been used before as well as after the accident. The Court of Appeal
unanimously reversed, on the ground that because the risk was not reasonably
foreseeable it was not reasonably practicable to guard against it. As Jenkins, L.J.,
explained, “it cannot fairly be said to be ‘reasonably practicable’ to guard against a
contingency that could not reasonably have been foreseen, inasmuch
as its occurrence would be contrary to all previous experience.” Thus, although Jenkins
mentioned Asquith’s disproportionate-cost test, he and the other judges in the Court of
Appeal had no occasion to apply it. In the House of Lords, by contrast, it was the issue of
precaution
costs on which the case turned. Rather than focusing on reasonable
foreseeability, Lord Oaksey invoked Lord Atkin’s disproportionate-
cost test:
What is “reasonably practicable” depends upon a consideration whether the time, trouble
and expense of the precautions suggested are disproportionate to the risk involved. It is
conceded in the present case that it was not reasonably practicable to make the roof se-
cure by timbering, and to have attempted to make it secure by pneumatic props in some
places and by leaving it un-mined in others when no slickenside had ever occurred for a
period of 20 years was not, in my judgment, reasonably practicable.
“
If a precaution is practicable it must be taken unless in the whole circumstances that
would be unreasonable. And as men’s lives may be at stake it should not lightly be held
that to take a practicable precaution is unreasonable.”
Lord Reid measures may be ‘practicable’ which are not ‘Reasonably practicable.’
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.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd [1946] –
extent to which employer may be held vicariously liable for negligence of
contractor
In
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Ltd v Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd
[1946]
,
the House of Lords held that where a crane was hired with a driver and
that driver was negligent, the driver's employer would be vicariously liable.
Where the negligence was in the way in which the hirer used the crane then the
hirer would for that purpose be the employer of the driver.
Paine v Colne Valley Electricity Supply Company [1938] 4 All ER 803 – employer’s
duty to provide a safe place of work- Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] –
higher duty of care owed to vulnerable employees
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
[1950]
was a decision of the
that
significantly affected the concept of
i
The plaintiff Paris
was employed by the then
as a general garage-hand. He had
