Whilst Professor Löfstedt had advisable a review” of the overall health and security provisions (with the potential of restricting the number of situations in which strict liability was relevant), the Government opted to make the single blanket amendment to the HSWA 1974, stating that it achieved the identical all round policy objective”. The outcome would likely have been different for Mader International if it had instead been prosecuted for breach of the Regulations.
These include some of the regulations with which UK well being and safety practitioners will be most familiar such as the Provision and Use of Operate Equipment Regulations (ʺPUWERʺ) 1998 and the Workplace (Health, Security and Welfare) Regulations 1992. When taking an employer to court for breach of overall health and safety, you either have to prove ‘negligence’ or a breach of ‘statutory duty’.
Each and every piece of operate wellness and security legislation around the nation (no matter whether harmonised or not) establishes consequences for failure to comply with statutory duties. Failure to comply with statutory regulations for the safe lowering of lifeboats gave rise to a civil action for damages by seamen injured as a outcome of the breach of statutory duty. The injured individual ought to also show that the type of loss or injury for which damages are becoming claimed was a foreseeable result of the breach of the duty. With impact from 1 October 2013 claims can no longer be brought based upon allegations of breach of statutory duty.
It was held by the Court of Appeal that an action will lie in respect of individual injury suffered by a workman employed in a factory by way of a breach by his employer, the occupier of the factory, of the duty to keep fencing for dangerous machinery imposed on him by s.5(4) of the Factory and Workshop Act 1878. It also explains why the Government has introduced an amendment that goes beyond strict liability and would, as it stands, apply to civil situations involving breaches of statutory duty below workplace regulations. They held that this was a widespread law idea which had been incorrectly applied in this case and was inconsistent with the extent of the duty under PUWER.