Meenakshi answered on
Mar 14 2020
Answer 2: Work Health and Safety Scenario
A safety inspector identified a ga
age disposal machine did not have a safety guard installed. He warned the owner, and the owner had a pantry hand put “out of service” tag on it, along with isolating the electricity from the machine. However, no one pays heed and the tag is removed for cleaning. One electrician reconnects the machine to electricity, and Pete who did not know that the machine was out of use, puts in his hand and his hand gets severely cut by the machine. The issue now is to identify the person who holds the duty of care towards Pete. And since under general laws employer holds a duty of care, the case requires one to assess if the employer has
eached his duty.
Tort of Negligence relates to actions wherein one person holds a duty of care towards another person. The first person negligently and not deliberately, does some conduct wherein his duty of care is
eached. On such
each, the person whose duty is violated receives damages from the other party. However such damages are contingent upon the fact that the violation must have resulted in some injury to the person (Torts.laws, 2018). However the tort also provides one exception, wherein the person towards whom duty is held, also has a say in the damage. It’s one of those cases where not only the person holding duty of care has been negligent, but the person towards whom that duty is held, is also negligent. In such case the damages are divided among the two, on the proportionate of their negligence (e-law resources, 2018). On the same lines, an employer also holds duty of care towards his employee. The tort requires him to ensure that his employee shall get a safe and healthy workplace.
The case of Hackney v Tower 152 N.W.2d 257 (1967)
ings out the concept of contributory negligence. Per this tort the court held that if the plaintiff has also been negligent, defendant cannot be solely held for being negligent. All the expenses and lost born by plaintiff would be born equally by both (Justia, 2017).
In the case of Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English: HL 1938, a mining employer had entrusted an employee with the task of a
anging safe system for work. However, he was negligent and as a result, another employee was injured. Lord Wright considered this as one of the cases of escaping the results of non-compliance with doctrine. Therefore, he stated that it was the obligation of the employer to ensure that his employees were working in a healthy and safe environment. Even though he entrusted the responsibility to another employee who was selected with extreme care, he had to ensure that the selected employee was ca
ying out his responsibility properly. Thus, reasonable care do not only meant a situation wherein the employer ensures safety in his own hands. But, also when the employer ensures safety through ensuring that those who have been aligned the duty of performing the task are working properly (swa
In the case of Davidson v Handley Page Ltd  1 All E.R. 235 (C.A.), the employer had again employed employees to specifically clean the slippery floors in their office. During the specific period of time, though the floor had been mopped but saw dust had not been spilled over it. And as a result, the plaintiff who was going to wash her cup slipped and got injured. The employer stated that the employee was not engaged in his professional duties while getting injured and therefore he was not liable for any injury caused. The court held that the employer is liable to provide safe appliances, all throughout the daily hours. And they included any hours that the employee utilized for his personal self (Hall, 2011). Thus, within the working hours for every minute an employee is in office, it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure that his employee has appropriate and safe appliances to work with.
In this case of Cook v Square D Ltd  one engineer had been sent over to Saudi Arabia, wherein his office had removable tiles so that access could be obtained to the wires and cables. While he was instructing others in his office, he tripped over one of the raise tile and injured his knee. The court held that it was the employer’s duty to ensure that even though it was required that the tiles could be raised, sufficient care should have been taken to ensure that they shall not be harmful to any employee (Oliphant and Nolan, 2017). Thus, if there is any case wherein the employer has some facility planted for beneficial working, they have to ensure that the facility does not makes their employees vulnerable to any harm.
In the case provided owner did his job by informing the relevant departments. Both of those departments ca
ied out their duties per the owner’s instruction. However, they failed to...