The Löfstedt report published in November 2011 identified that wellness and security regulations imposed strict liability on employers, producing them liable for injuries suffered by their employees at work, regardless of the extent to which the employer in question had sought to comply with its overall health and security duties and regardless of whether it had taken all affordable methods to protect its staff from harm. As a result, it is no longer sufficient to draw a dotted line between a breach of duty and an injury in order to establish civil liability (as if it was ever that simple…). This of course is all element of the maelstrom related with ‘red tape’ – a convenient ruse to rid the UK of the ‘burden’ of overall health and safety laws. Ensure the safety and absence of dangers to well being in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances.
HSE and neighborhood authority wellness and safety officers have no power to investigate incidents or pursue enforcement action in relation to most purely voluntary activities (topic to restricted exceptions such as exactly where a volunteer is in manage of non-domestic premises). The employer can be liable for breach of statutory duty if it is proved that he contravened any other well being and safety legislation, such as a regulatory requirement relating to workplaces, exposure to substances, and so on.
Even so, regardless of Mader International’s concession that it had not complied with all of its statutory duties, the jury discovered that there was no negligence or breach of the employer’s statutory duty that caused Mr Duma’s injury and the Court discovered in favour of the employer. If the possibility of bringing a claim for breach of statutory duty is removed and only a claim for negligence is offered most claims would continue to be brought in respect of negligence.
However, the Court of Appeal held that this was not the case in Mr Duma’s situations, which had been not analogous to a failure to keep a guard or security screen in front of a hazardous machine. The employer can be liable in contract if a self-employed contractor proves that his or her injury was due to the employer’s breach of a contract involving them.
Failure to comply with wellness and safety duties, regulations, operate rules and procedures regarding wellness and security, on the element of any employee, could lead to dismissal in the case of significant breaches or repeated breaches such dismissal may be instant and without prior warning. Under s.47 of the Health and Security at Perform, and so on Act 1974, there is a legal presumption that all well being and safety regulations involve civil liability unless expressly incorporated. Duty holders should comply with them or be able to show that the chosen indicates of manage are equally efficient.
