59
|
P a g e
sight in only one eye, and his employer was aware of this. The council only issued eye
protection goggles to its employees who were welders or tool-grinders. In the course of
his usual work, Paris received an injury to his sighted eye. He sued the council for the
o
On appeal it was decided that Stepney Borough Council was aware of
his special circumstances and failed in their
o give him protective goggles.
Paris was employed by Stepney Borough Council as garage-hand. He had suffered a war
injury that left him with sight in only one eye. While Paris was attempting to loosen a
rusted car axle bolt with a hammer, he caused a chip of metal to fly into his sighted eye,
and as a result was permanently blinded in both eyes
Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd v Haynes [1959] – higher duty of care expected of
an experienced employee
Negligence - Safe system of work - General precautions - Metal welding - Protective
clothing available for workmen - No orders or advice to wear it - Workman injured -
Employers' liability. Judicial Precedent - Question of fact - Jury question - Decision of
judge on it not a precedent. Fact or Law - Negligence - Standard of care - Always a
question of fact. Law Report - Reporting of decisions - No principle of law - Standard of
care issue in action for negligence
Rose v Plenty [1976] – vicarious liability of employer for acts of employee
Rose v Plenty
[1976]
is an
case, on the issue of where a
is
acting within the course of their employment
was tenuously found
under
test for course of employment, which states that an
employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a
wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that was authorised.
Mr Plenty was
under employment i
by the Co-operative Retail
Services Ltd, since Easter of 1970. At the depot where he worked, there was a
prohibition on allowing children onto any vehicle, with evidence that the employers and
trade unions had attempted to stop such behavior. There were signs to this effect, which
were large and visible to employees; one such stated:
"
Children and young persons must not in any circumstances be employed by you in the
performance of your duties.
However, children still persisted in going to the depot in the hopes of being allowed
onto milk floats. Soon after he was employed, Mr Plenty was approached by Leslie Rose,
at the time a 13 year old boy, who asked if he could help the employee on his rounds.
This was agreed upon, and Rose engaged in collecting money and delivering milk during
Mr Plenty's rounds
.
He was paid a small wage for this help on several occasions, before
