Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
![Nelson), where the employer appeared faultless, while the employee was in breach of regulations imposing duties on him personally, the employer did escape liability. It may be that the argument made in these cases – that an employer should not be liable for the casual negligence of an employee where it is not reasonably practicable to prevent such lapses – will not be persuasive in the light of regulation 22 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (see Chapter 12). R v BRITISH STEEL PLC [1995] IRLR 310 British Steel wanted to re-position part of a steel platform at one of its plants. The task was given to subcontractors on a labour-only basis and the work was to be supervised by British Steel’s own employee. The engineer told the subcontractor’s two men not to remove the supporting columns of the platform until the crane had taken its weight. In the event, the platform was cut free of nearly all its supports without being secured to the crane. The platform collapsed, fell onto and killed one of the visiting workmen. British Steel was charged and convicted in the Crown Court under s3(1). On appeal, British Steel reiterated the argument it had presented to the trial court, namely, that their engineer had carried out his supervisory duty properly. The accident had occurred because the two men had disobeyed instructions. It was further argued that, even if their employee were at fault, the company had, at the level of its ‘directing mind’, taken reasonable care to delegate supervision of the operation and, accordingly, the company was not responsible under s3(1) for their engineer’s actions. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Steyn LJ. The following extracts begin at p 313:](https://images.tandf.co.uk/common/jackets/crclarge/978185941/9781859415603.jpg "Nelson), where the employer appeared faultless, while the employee was in breach of regulations imposing duties on him personally, the employer did escape liability. It may be that the argument made in these cases – that an employer should not be liable for the casual negligence of an employee where it is not reasonably practicable to prevent such lapses – will not be persuasive in the light of regulation 22 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (see Chapter 12). R v BRITISH STEEL PLC [1995] IRLR 310 British Steel wanted to re-position part of a steel platform at one of its plants. The task was given to subcontractors on a labour-only basis and the work was to be supervised by British Steel’s own employee. The engineer told the subcontractor’s two men not to remove the supporting columns of the platform until the crane had taken its weight. In the event, the platform was cut free of nearly all its supports without being secured to the crane. The platform collapsed, fell onto and killed one of the visiting workmen. British Steel was charged and convicted in the Crown Court under s3(1). On appeal, British Steel reiterated the argument it had presented to the trial court, namely, that their engineer had carried out his supervisory duty properly. The accident had occurred because the two men had disobeyed instructions. It was further argued that, even if their employee were at fault, the company had, at the level of its ‘directing mind’, taken reasonable care to delegate supervision of the operation and, accordingly, the company was not responsible under s3(1) for their engineer’s actions. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Steyn LJ. The following extracts begin at p 313:")
Chapter
Nelson), where the employer appeared faultless, while the employee was in breach of regulations imposing duties on him personally, the employer did escape liability. It may be that the argument made in these cases – that an employer should not be liable for the casual negligence of an employee where it is not reasonably practicable to prevent such lapses – will not be persuasive in the light of regulation 22 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (see Chapter 12). R v BRITISH STEEL PLC [1995] IRLR 310 British Steel wanted to re-position part of a steel platform at one of its plants. The task was given to subcontractors on a labour-only basis and the work was to be supervised by British Steel’s own employee. The engineer told the subcontractor’s two men not to remove the supporting columns of the platform until the crane had taken its weight. In the event, the platform was cut free of nearly all its supports without being secured to the crane. The platform collapsed, fell onto and killed one of the visiting workmen. British Steel was charged and convicted in the Crown Court under s3(1). On appeal, British Steel reiterated the argument it had presented to the trial court, namely, that their engineer had carried out his supervisory duty properly. The accident had occurred because the two men had disobeyed instructions. It was further argued that, even if their employee were at fault, the company had, at the level of its ‘directing mind’, taken reasonable care to delegate supervision of the operation and, accordingly, the company was not responsible under s3(1) for their engineer’s actions. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Steyn LJ. The following extracts begin at p 313:
DOI link for Nelson), where the employer appeared faultless, while the employee was in breach of regulations imposing duties on him personally, the employer did escape liability. It may be that the argument made in these cases – that an employer should not be liable for the casual negligence of an employee where it is not reasonably practicable to prevent such lapses – will not be persuasive in the light of regulation 22 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (see Chapter 12). R v BRITISH STEEL PLC [1995] IRLR 310 British Steel wanted to re-position part of a steel platform at one of its plants. The task was given to subcontractors on a labour-only basis and the work was to be supervised by British Steel’s own employee. The engineer told the subcontractor’s two men not to remove the supporting columns of the platform until the crane had taken its weight. In the event, the platform was cut free of nearly all its supports without being secured to the crane. The platform collapsed, fell onto and killed one of the visiting workmen. British Steel was charged and convicted in the Crown Court under s3(1). On appeal, British Steel reiterated the argument it had presented to the trial court, namely, that their engineer had carried out his supervisory duty properly. The accident had occurred because the two men had disobeyed instructions. It was further argued that, even if their employee were at fault, the company had, at the level of its ‘directing mind’, taken reasonable care to delegate supervision of the operation and, accordingly, the company was not responsible under s3(1) for their engineer’s actions. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Steyn LJ. The following extracts begin at p 313:
Nelson), where the employer appeared faultless, while the employee was in breach of regulations imposing duties on him personally, the employer did escape liability. It may be that the argument made in these cases – that an employer should not be liable for the casual negligence of an employee where it is not reasonably practicable to prevent such lapses – will not be persuasive in the light of regulation 22 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (see Chapter 12). R v BRITISH STEEL PLC [1995] IRLR 310 British Steel wanted to re-position part of a steel platform at one of its plants. The task was given to subcontractors on a labour-only basis and the work was to be supervised by British Steel’s own employee. The engineer told the subcontractor’s two men not to remove the supporting columns of the platform until the crane had taken its weight. In the event, the platform was cut free of nearly all its supports without being secured to the crane. The platform collapsed, fell onto and killed one of the visiting workmen. British Steel was charged and convicted in the Crown Court under s3(1). On appeal, British Steel reiterated the argument it had presented to the trial court, namely, that their engineer had carried out his supervisory duty properly. The accident had occurred because the two men had disobeyed instructions. It was further argued that, even if their employee were at fault, the company had, at the level of its ‘directing mind’, taken reasonable care to delegate supervision of the operation and, accordingly, the company was not responsible under s3(1) for their engineer’s actions. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Steyn LJ. The following extracts begin at p 313:
Click here to navigate to parent product.
ABSTRACT
Nelson), where the employer appeared faultless, while the employee was in breach of regulations imposing duties on him personally, the employer did escape liability. It may be that the argument made in these cases – that an employer should not be liable for the casual negligence of an employee where it is not reasonably practicable to prevent such lapses – will not be persuasive in the light of regulation 22 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (see Chapter 12).
