be obeyed by them personally and they knew that their employers wished to enforce the observance of this duty. Nevertheless, it is, as Viscount Radcliffe’s opinion recognises, difficult to distinguish this case from Stapley. Would their Lordships have come to a different conclusion in Stapley if the deceased’s co-worker had also been injured? In that case, because only one worker was injured, by pitching the employer’s liability at 20% of the damage caused, the cost to the employer was relatively small. Bearing in mind that the employer was personally faultless and was only sued because of vicarious liability for the fault of the deceased’s co-worker, this apportionment of responsibility as between the two workers was arguably unfair to the deceased, who was probably no more to blame than his co-worker. In a case like ICI v Shatwell, however, where both were injured, if the court had found both workers equally to blame, the potential liability for the employer would be much greater. IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD v SHATWELL [1965] AC 656 The following extracts are from the speech of Viscount Radcliffe, beginning at p 675:

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-121

Chapter

be obeyed by them personally and they knew that their employers wished to enforce the observance of this duty. Nevertheless, it is, as Viscount Radcliffe’s opinion recognises, difficult to distinguish this case from Stapley. Would their Lordships have come to a different conclusion in Stapley if the deceased’s co-worker had also been injured? In that case, because only one worker was injured, by pitching the employer’s liability at 20% of the damage caused, the cost to the employer was relatively small. Bearing in mind that the employer was personally faultless and was only sued because of vicarious liability for the fault of the deceased’s co-worker, this apportionment of responsibility as between the two workers was arguably unfair to the deceased, who was probably no more to blame than his co-worker. In a case like ICI v Shatwell, however, where both were injured, if the court had found both workers equally to blame, the potential liability for the employer would be much greater. IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD v SHATWELL [1965] AC 656 The following extracts are from the speech of Viscount Radcliffe, beginning at p 675:

Chapter

be obeyed by them personally and they knew that their employers wished to enforce the observance of this duty. Nevertheless, it is, as Viscount Radcliffe’s opinion recognises, difficult to distinguish this case from Stapley. Would their Lordships have come to a different conclusion in Stapley if the deceased’s co-worker had also been injured? In that case, because only one worker was injured, by pitching the employer’s liability at 20% of the damage caused, the cost to the employer was relatively small. Bearing in mind that the employer was personally faultless and was only sued because of vicarious liability for the fault of the deceased’s co-worker, this apportionment of responsibility as between the two workers was arguably unfair to the deceased, who was probably no more to blame than his co-worker. In a case like ICI v Shatwell, however, where both were injured, if the court had found both workers equally to blame, the potential liability for the employer would be much greater. IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD v SHATWELL [1965] AC 656 The following extracts are from the speech of Viscount Radcliffe, beginning at p 675:

ABSTRACT

My Lords, it sometimes helps to assess the merits of a decision, if one starts by noticing its results and only after doing that allots to it the legal principles upon which it is said to depend. Starting in that order, the present case can be summarised as follows. The Shatwell brothers have injured themselves by causing an explosion, to the danger of which they would not have been exposed if they had obeyed the shot-firing regulations, of which they knew, and their employer’s instructions. This event is very unfortunate for them; but they were adults, skilled and trained men, and they went into the operation of testing the electrical circuit without taking cover in the face of their knowledge that they ought not to do it in that way. I do not suppose that, having regard to their experience, the method they adopted seemed to them to be dangerous; on the other hand, they must have been aware, in the light of the recent regulations, that it carried an element of risk and, as between the two of them, each of them must be taken to have accepted the risk of their joint operation.