Health and safety
A recent appeal judgment clarifies when an employer should assess the risks for a pregnant worker, reports Howard Fidderman
In Stevenson v JM Skinner & Co EAT/0584/07, the EAT held that an employer complied with its statutory duty to carry out a risk assessment in relation to a pregnant employee when it addressed her concerns at meetings with her and, taking account of all the circumstances, evaluated and agreed the relevant risks.
In Corr (administratix of the estate of Thomas Corr (deceased)) v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13, the House of Lords held that the employer of a man who was injured at work and, as a consequence, suffered severe depression that led to suicide, was liable under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 for loss attributable to his suicide.
In Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Case C-127/05 ECJ, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has rejected a challenge to the use of the phrase 'so far as is reasonably practicable' in UK health and safety legislation.
Where an employee is experiencing stress related to excessive workloads, the presence of a workplace counselling service will not automatically serve to discharge the employer's duty of care in stress claims.
In New Southern Railway Ltd v Quinn [2006] IRLR 606 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that an employer's duty to take steps to "avoid" risk to a pregnant woman means that the risk should be reduced to its lowest acceptable level - not that it must be removed completely.
In Hawley v Luminar Leisure and others [2006] EWCA Civ 18 CA, the Court of Appeal holds that responsibility for controlling a worker passed to his "temporary deemed employer", and it was unsuccessful in its attempt to persuade the court to make a finding of dual vicarious liability.
Bess Sturman and Richard Port of Addleshaw Goddard outline the latest legal rulings and explain what you need to know to avoid tribunals.
In Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd and others, the Court of Appeal holds that more than one "employer" can be vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee, overturning a long-standing assumption that it is possible in law only for one employer to be so liable.
In Bunning v G T Bunning & Sons Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that the tribunal was correct to find the employer in breach of its obligation to carry out a risk assessment for a pregnant worker under reg.16 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to health and safety.