70
|
P a g e
The House of Lords unanimously ruled that there had been a breach of statutory duty.
The requirement that dangerous parts of machinery should be securely fenced was
absolute.
It was not subject to derogation or dilution by such words as 'as far as reasonably
practicable'.
The duty was to provide fencing which absolutely prevented any part of any person
working on the premises from coming into contact with any dangerous part of the
machine.
If the effect of this was to make the machine unusable, then so be it.
Lord Morton thought that fencing should prevent an employee's clothing from coming
into contact with dangerous parts of a machine.
The standard of fencing must be good enough to keep out the careless or inattentive
worker as well as the meticulous, careful one.
Thompson and others v Smiths Ship-repairers (North Shields) [1984] –
employer’s duty to protect employees from known and reasonably foreseeable
danger; date of knowledge of risk
Negligence - Safe system of work - Noise - Excessive noise in shipbuilding and ship-
repair yards - Known risk of noise affecting employees' hearing - Introduction of
suitable protection against industrial noise - Employers subsequently taking
precautions to protect employees - Whether employers negligent in not protecting
employees earlier - Quantum of damages
Uddin v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd [1965] – contributory
negligence
Uddin v. Associated Portland Cement Mfrs. Ltd., [1965] 2 All E.R. 213
Contributory negligence; employee in unauthorised place.
Uddin was employed in a cement factory run by APC Ltd. He went to a part of the
factory where he was not authorised to be in order to catch a pigeon. Uddin climbed up
to a position where there was unfenced machinery. As a result he became entangled
with a revolving shaft and lost an arm.
Uddin brought an action for damages against his employer, alleging that the shaft was a
dangerous part of machinery that should be fenced in accordance with the
requirements of s14 (1) Factories Act 1937
It made no difference that Uddin was in a part of the factory where he was not supposed
to be or that he was doing something that had nothing to do with his work. It was
enough that he was an employee that had suffered injury through a breach of statutory
duty. It was therefore held that the defendants were in breach of their statutory
obligations and that the plaintiff, who at the time of the injury was performing an act
