The, But For Test, By Hart And Honero And Developed By Wright

Although the Health and Safety at work etc. Act 1974 provides criminal legislation for employers, there are various key health and safety requirements that identify a duty of care owed to an employee by an employer, that have been set via precedents. This essay aims to identify the key health and safety requirements owed by an employer to an employee, deriving from common law, including the principle of vicarious liability

This essay will briefly explain negligence and its elements and will further critically analyse the UK compensation culture and discuss whether it exist, or whether it is a perception created by the media. This essay will further discuss whether the UK laws encourage people to blame and claim and what the UK law has done to prevent an increase in the compensation culture.

“A factor, by itself, may not be sufficient to cause injury but if, with other factors, it materially contributes to causing injury, it is clearly a cause of injury.”. This quote, stated by Lord Salmon in McGhee v National Coal Board is an example of the difficulty that can arise when determining if a defendant had materially contributed to the plaintiff 's injury when the medical evidence is inconclusive. It is argued that the material contribution test has changed the path of the law and as we will see when analysing both McGhee and Fairchild, it has blurred the distinction between legal and factual causation.

The first argument is supported from the Transport Workers Airlines Award 1988 similar to the case of Mallinson and Scottish Australian Investment Co Ltd 'where an employee tried to recover in the New South Wales District Courts the difference between the award rate and the lesser amount which he had been paid.'

Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 is a law which puts duties on employers, the self-employed and people in control of work premises to report certain serious workplace accident, occupational diseases and specified dangerous occurrences. These reports enable the

In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman7, it was determined that courts had to test the duty by “whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant, and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty.”8 If so, then a duty of care could arise.

On Thursday, 10/22/2015 the claimant stated he reported for work pain-free and was not suffering from any pain or discomfort from four other work related injuries that he reported as claims and received judgments. The claimant was unable to account for the real dates of his past work-related injuries that occurred between 2010 and 1/2013. The claimants past industrial-related injuries ranged from a left wrist injury, head injury and two separate right wrist injuries which he says did not include any injury to any other body parts.

Ms. Almanza claimed she researched and provided the claimant’s entire personnel file for this investigation and stated she was not aware of any industrial-related injuries associated with the claimants said injuries, by noting that no treating physicians ever provided any causation or the implied injuries. She provided proof with the claimant’s personnel file taken into as evidence by stating there was no medical evidence, doctors note or request of modified work duties to suggest any medical

If cancer is developed from a radiation exposure on the job, the workers ' compensation law would cover it. However, the contamination resulted in hysteria and fear in Silkwood in which she required medical treatment and examination. The Workers ' Compensation Act required reimbursement for medical attention from job-related accidents (Walsh p 496). Silkwood had missed time from work during testing, and she incurred medical expense which was respectfully for paid by Kerr-McGee. But even if she had not, work time loss and medical expense are not necessary requisites to finding an injury is exclusively covered by workers ' compensation.

Ragnarr, must prove to the court that due to the states negligent actions he will consequently experience economic loss. Causation refers to whether the defendants conduct (or omission), in this case The State Of Victoria, caused the resulting harm or damage. The common law of negligence obliges instigation of causation for the purposefulness of attaching legal accountability. Another element that must be proven is that it is applicable for the scope of the negligent persons liability to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability ). As it is a case of negligence the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, is weighed upon our client, the plaintiff Mr. Ragnarr. Even if the ‘but for’ test is applied to the current situation in the case, the outcome would be that the loss suffered by the plaintiff would have only occurred if the defendant acted negligently, which they did, and therefore if they hadn’t have acted in that way, then our client would not have been publicly humiliated by the State Of Victoria as a result. The court must deliberate whether it is suitable to extend the scope of the defendant negligence to the harm caused to the plaintiff and our client, Mr. Ragnarr. The harm that occurred, or similar harm, must have been foreseeable in order for it to reach within the scope of liability upon the

Before 1932 there was no generalised duty of care in negligence. The tort did exist and was applied in particular situations where the courts had decided that a duty should be owed, eg, road accidents, bailments or dangerous goods. In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Lord Atkin attempted to lay down a general principle which would cover all the circumstances where the courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence. He said:

It is the opinion of this essay that this could be an effective method in combating the breaching of any Health and Safety rules; strict liability may allow enforcement agencies to ‘Strengthen their position’ (Roe, p.211.1) as potential offenders are aware that if any prosecution is brought against them, there is a good chance of conviction, due to the nature of strict liability. Elliot and Quinn (p.33.1) tell us that ‘strict liability makes enforcing offences easier.’ In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v A-G (1985), the defendants were involved in building

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.

The reality is the tort of negligence and a duty of care technically existed in cases such as Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co and Winterbottom v Wright .

The case of Donoghue versus Stevenson was a landmark case in Scottish and English tort law, establishing from that point forward a precedent for identification of negligence as a determination of liability. My colleague's posting provides some interesting insight into how this precedent was arrived at. The posting also leaves room for yet more extensive discussion on the legal implications of the 1932 decision.