The pursuer (claimant to these in E&W) was employed by the defendant as a shop assistant. It was held by the Court of Appeal that an action will lie in respect of private injury suffered by a workman employed in a factory through a breach by his employer, the occupier of the factory, of the duty to retain fencing for harmful machinery imposed on him by s.five(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 beneath workplace regulations. They held that this was a widespread law concept which had been incorrectly applied in this case and was inconsistent with the extent of the duty beneath PUWER.

Professor Löfstedt considered the influence that the perception of a compensation culture has had in driving … Read the rest >>>