Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
years after this case, two short Acts of Parliament stipulated that employers must be insured against their liability: (a) for personal injury to their employees; and (b) for injuries to their employees which are attributable to any defect in equipment provided by the employer for the purposes of the employer’s business. The first Act in no way extended common law liability: it intended merely to provide funds from which the employer’s liability could be met. The second Act in effect reversed the decision in Davie v New Merton Board Mills and accordingly extended the employer’s liability. However the Act did provide that the employer could seek an indemnity from the wrongdoing manufacturer of the defective equipment: EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY (COMPULSORY INSURANCE) ACT 1969
DOI link for years after this case, two short Acts of Parliament stipulated that employers must be insured against their liability: (a) for personal injury to their employees; and (b) for injuries to their employees which are attributable to any defect in equipment provided by the employer for the purposes of the employer’s business. The first Act in no way extended common law liability: it intended merely to provide funds from which the employer’s liability could be met. The second Act in effect reversed the decision in Davie v New Merton Board Mills and accordingly extended the employer’s liability. However the Act did provide that the employer could seek an indemnity from the wrongdoing manufacturer of the defective equipment: EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY (COMPULSORY INSURANCE) ACT 1969
years after this case, two short Acts of Parliament stipulated that employers must be insured against their liability: (a) for personal injury to their employees; and (b) for injuries to their employees which are attributable to any defect in equipment provided by the employer for the purposes of the employer’s business. The first Act in no way extended common law liability: it intended merely to provide funds from which the employer’s liability could be met. The second Act in effect reversed the decision in Davie v New Merton Board Mills and accordingly extended the employer’s liability. However the Act did provide that the employer could seek an indemnity from the wrongdoing manufacturer of the defective equipment: EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY (COMPULSORY INSURANCE) ACT 1969
Click here to navigate to parent product.
ABSTRACT