One Breach Of Duty Does Not Causation Make
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 … Read the rest >>>
As with all branches of UK law, wellness and security law can be criminal or civil and it can be defined frequent law or statue primarily based. In sensible terms, if an employer was in breach of a statutory duty and that breach led to an employee suffering injury (i.e. if it could be proved that, had the regulation been properly applied, the injury would not have occurred.), then the employer was liable for damages. I think, although I could be incorrect (gasp!) that there is a 3 year window of ‘opportunity’ (?) to make a claim against an employer in regards to breach of statutory duty.