In Nelhams v Sandells Maintenance Ltd and Gillespie (UK) Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that an employer is liable for an employee whose safety it has entrusted to a third party.
In Richardson v Pitt-Stanley and others the Court of Appeal holds that the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 does not create a civil, as well as a criminal, liability.
The decision of the Court of Session in Robertson and Rough v Forth Road Bridge Joint Board shows that the Scottish courts will be reluctant to extend this duty, and will tend towards a narrow view when deciding claims.
In Walker v Northumberland County Council the High Court holds an employer liable for the psychiatric damage suffered by an employee after it failed to take reasonable steps to avert a second nervous breakdown.
"Risk" is interpreted in a wider sense to convey the possibility of danger, in R v The Board of Trustees of the Science Museum. The Court of Appeal thus upholds the decision of the Crown Court, and notes that a more restrictive definition of "actual danger" would result in "substantial emasculation" of a central part of the HSW Act.
In Page v Freight Hire (Tank Haulage) Ltd [1981] IRLR 13 EAT, the EAT held that the employer was protected by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, section 51(1) because refusing to allow the employee to transport dimethyl formamide was necessary to comply with the employer's duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was not an act of excessive caution.
In Stokes v Guest, Keen and Nettlefold (Bolts and Nuts) Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 1776, it was held: that an employer does not fall below the standard to be properly expected of a reasonable and prudent employer if it follows a recognised practice, unless it is clearly bad, but it must keep reasonably abreast of developing knowledge, and not be too slow to apply it; that where an employer has greater than average knowledge of the risks it might be obliged to take more than average precautions; and that it should weigh up the risk in terms of the likelihood of injury occurring and the potential consequences and balance that against the effectiveness, expense and inconvenience of the precautions.
In Withers v Perry Chain Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 1314 CA, it was held that the employer was under no duty to dismiss or to refuse to employ an adult employee who wished to do a job merely because there might be some slight risk to the employee in doing the work.
In Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 1 All ER 574 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where evidence showed a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the persons in whose care the plaintiff was, the defendants were liable to the plaintiff regardless of which individual was negligent.
In Jacobs v LCC [1950] AC 361 HL, the House of Lords held that a woman who had been injured as a result of tripping on a protruding water supply stopcock on council property had been a licensee not an invitee and that the cause of the trip did not amount to a public nuisance adjoining the highway.