Self-test questions: Employers' Liability

. Which of the following are NOT part of an employer's personal non-delegable obligations to provide for an employee?

The duty to provide a competent workforce.

The duty to provide adequate plant & equipment.

The duty to provide a safe system of working.

The duty to have adequate insurance.

The duty to provide a safe place of work.

. Femi is injured at work when a fellow employee Joey plays a practical joke on him, trips him up and he falls down the stairs. Joey has already been involved in disciplinary proceedings with the employer in relation to the playing of practical jokes at work. Can Femi successfully sue his employer for the injuries?

Yes, the employer is in breach of their non-delegable duty of care to provide a competent workforce.

Yes, the employer needs to provide a safe place of work and practical jokes place the employer in breach of that non-delegable duty of care.

No, Joey's actions act as a novus actus interveniens/intervening act and prevent the employer from being liable.

No, by initiating disciplinary proceedings in relation to Joey, the employer has discharged his non-delegable duty of care.

No, a practical joke is a deliberate act, which overrides the employer's duty.

. Ned was a scaffolder. He fell from some scaffolding as he was not wearing a safety harness. Ned's employer had failed to provide appropriate safety equipment for working at height. Ned preferred not to wear a safety harness. Can Ned successfully sue his employer for failing to provide adequate material and equipment?

Yes, the employer is in breach of their non-delegable duty of care to provide adequate materials and equipment.

Yes, the employer needs to provide a safe place of work and failing to provide appropriate safety harnesses place the employer in breach of that non-delegable duty of care.

Yes, the employer's duty is non-delegable and they are in breach, irrespective of the employee's own actions.

No, if Ned would not have worn a harness even if one had been provided, then the employer's breach of duty is not the cause of the injuries.

No, the employer's duty was to provide the equipment only to those employees who would use it.

. Leia works as a cleaner for BigShop. BigShop provided her with all of the cleaning materials she might need to clean the shop floor and pairs of rubber gloves. BigShop warned her of the possibility of developing dermatitis but did not instruct her to wear the gloves. Leia develops dermatitis on her hands after working with the cleaning products in her job. Can Leia successfully sue BigShop for breach of their non-delegable duty?

Yes, the employer is in breach of their non-delegable duty of care to provide adequate materials and equipment.

Yes, the employer needs to provide a proper system of working and in failing to instruct Leia to wear the gloves it places the employer in breach of that non-delegable duty of care.

No, the employer provided the appropriate equipment and gave a warning about developing dermatitis, so they have therefore discharged their duty of care.

No, if the employer provided her with the rubber gloves it was implied that she ought to wear them, therefore there was no failure to provide equipment or a proper system of working.

No, the employer's duty was to provide the equipment, and it was Leia's responsibility to use it. The failure was therefore hers.

. Luke works in the Defendant's factory. There was a rainstorm and the rainwater flooded the factory. It mixed with oil which normally collected in channels around the floor. As a result when the rainwater drained away the floor was incredibly slippery. The Defendant's factory manager covered the floor with sawdust but ran out and left one corner of the factory floor untreated. Luke slipped on the untreated area of floor and broke his wrist. Can Luke successfully sue his employer for breach of duty?

Yes, the employer is in breach of their non-delegable duty of care to provide a safe workplace.

Yes, if it was appropriate to use sawdust to reduce the slipperiness, the entire floor needed to be covered, so the employer is in breach of their duty to provide a safe workplace.

Yes, if the employer was unable to maintain a safe workplace, then they should have shut the factory down to protect the employees.

No, the employer had done all that they could reasonably be expected to do in the circumstances to maintain a safe place of work, they do not have to ensure that the workplace is completely safe.

No, the employer had delegated the job of making the factory safe to the factory manager, and therefore owed no duty to Luke.

. Mia is a music fan attending a concert with her friend. Ricky is one of the security staff working at the venue. Ricky is known to be quite hot-headed and his employer has had words with him before about this, equally the venue owner has urged the security staff to have a zero tolerance policy for bad behaviour in the queue, and to "act accordingly". Mia leaves her place in the queue to buy a bottle of water, and when she tries to return to her place next to her friend, Ricky forcibly removes her for queue jumping. He grabs her by the hood of her jacket and lifts her off the ground, causing her bruising and other injuries. Mia understands that she can sue the venue owner as being vicariously liable for Ricky's actions, but wants to know if she can sue the venue owner personally for breach of their duty of care?

Yes, the employer needs to provide a safe place of work for employees and customers and therefore the employer is in breach of that non-delegable duty of care.

Yes, the employer is in breach of their non-delegable duty of care to provide a competent workforce, by failing to select security staff carefully and/or ensure that they are appropriately supervised to ensure appropriate behaviour.

No, Ricky's actions act as a novus actus interveniens/intervening act and prevent the employer from being liable.

No, while the employer may be vicariously liable for Ricky's actions, there is no question of the employer being personally liable.

No, Ricky's actions were deliberate acts, which override the employer's duty.

. What is the effect of the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969?

It places the onus on the employer to show that it was the equipment that was defective, to avoid liability.

If the employer can show that they took reasonable care in providing the equipment, but the equipment was defective, then the employer can pass the liability for an employee's injury to the manufacturer of equipment.

It enables an employer to seek a claim for contribution/indemnity from the manufacturer of defective equipment.

If the employee can prove that the equipment was defective they can choose who to sue, the employer or the manufacturer.

If the employee can prove that the defect was either wholly or partly caused by a third party (usually the manufacturer), the employer will be liable

. What is meant by the term "non-delegable" in relation to an employer's "non-delegable" duty?

An employer is responsible for taking reasonable care to employee suitable people.

An employer can delegate the protection of employees' safety to another but must take reasonable care in doing so.

An employer has a duty to ensure that reasonable care is taken, if the person they delegate that job to fails to take reasonable care, then the employer remains liable.

An employer has a duty to ensure that reasonable care is taken, if the person they delegate that job to fails to take reasonable care, then the employer cannot be liable if they took reasonable care in selecting them.

An employer must personally ensure that employees are safe and is not allowed to delegate this to any third party/employee.

. Does an employer remain under a duty to ensure the safety of their employee when the employee is working at a third party's premises?

Yes, the Defendant remains personally responsible wherever the employee is working.

Yes, the Defendant is under a non-delegable duty, therefore cannot delegate it to a third party when the employee is working on a third party's premises.

It depends, the employer is under a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their employee, where an employee is on a third party's premises, the employer's liability will depend on what is reasonable in the circumstances.

No, the Defendant is under a duty to ensure the safety of their employee, they can reasonably delegate that to a third party if they take sufficient care, and it is likely that they will do so if the employee is working at a third party's premises.

No, a Defendant employer cannot be under a duty to ensure the safety of their employee when they are on a third party's premises.

. Joud works as a plumber for PlumbCo and usually works on building sites for large home builders in the UK. She is sent by PlumbCo to work on a job in France where she is fitting out the plumbing in a large house. While working there, Joud slips on a poorly maintained stair rod and falls down the stairs, injuring her back. Can Joud sue her employer PlumbCo for breach of their duty to her?

Yes, the Defendant remains personally responsible wherever the employee is working.

Yes, the Defendant is under a non-delegable duty, therefore cannot delegate it to a third party when the employee is working on a third party's premises.

Yes, the employer is under a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their employee, where an employee is on a third party's premises, the employer's liability will depend on what is reasonable in the circumstances and it would be reasonable for PlumbCo to be responsible in these circumstances.

No, the Defendant is under a duty to ensure the safety of their employee, they can reasonably delegate that to a third party if they take sufficient care, and it is likely that they will do so if the employee is working at a third party's premises.

No, the employer is under a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their employee, where an employee is on a third party's premises, the employer's liability will depend on what is reasonable in the circumstances and it would not be reasonable for an employer to be responsible for the situation in France.

Quiz Content