Fault or strict liability? There is no suggestion of an absolute duty to provide either a safe workplace or safe working arrangements. The propositions about the vicarious liability of the employer assume that such liability would only arise in relation to the ‘consequences of the negligence’ of those named in the examples. The judge’s concern on this matter was exactly that the employer might be responsible for the wrongdoings of these people, even though he, the employer, might not personally be at fault. That is the employer might be strictly liable for the wrongdoing of others. This indeed, is the nature of vicarious liability today. 7 The personal responsibility of the employer This is also addressed in terms of fault (negligence) rather than strict liability. It is said that the master cannot be required to take more care of the servant than he may be expected to take of himself. 8 Personal responsibility of the employee The judgment imposes a considerable responsibility on the employee personally. It is said that he may decline dangerous work. It also says that he is possibly better placed than the employer to evaluate the dangers (it suggests that this may be because the employee is on the spot, while the employer may be elsewhere). It concludes that the employee has a duty towards the employer, as well as towards himself, to ensure that the task is done safely, so that the employer’s interests do not suffer. (b)Developments after Priestley v Fowler

DOI link for Fault or strict liability? There is no suggestion of an absolute duty to provide either a safe workplace or safe working arrangements. The propositions about the vicarious liability of the employer assume that such liability would only arise in relation to the ‘consequences of the negligence’ of those named in the examples. The judge’s concern on this matter was exactly that the employer might be responsible for the wrongdoings of these people, even though he, the employer, might not personally be at fault. That is the employer might be strictly liable for the wrongdoing of others. This indeed, is the nature of vicarious liability today. 7 The personal responsibility of the employer This is also addressed in terms of fault (negligence) rather than strict liability. It is said that the master cannot be required to take more care of the servant than he may be expected to take of himself. 8 Personal responsibility of the employee The judgment imposes a considerable responsibility on the employee personally. It is said that he may decline dangerous work. It also says that he is possibly better placed than the employer to evaluate the dangers (it suggests that this may be because the employee is on the spot, while the employer may be elsewhere). It concludes that the employee has a duty towards the employer, as well as towards himself, to ensure that the task is done safely, so that the employer’s interests do not suffer. (b)Developments after Priestley v Fowler

Fault or strict liability? There is no suggestion of an absolute duty to provide either a safe workplace or safe working arrangements. The propositions about the vicarious liability of the employer assume that such liability would only arise in relation to the ‘consequences of the negligence’ of those named in the examples. The judge’s concern on this matter was exactly that the employer might be responsible for the wrongdoings of these people, even though he, the employer, might not personally be at fault. That is the employer might be strictly liable for the wrongdoing of others. This indeed, is the nature of vicarious liability today. 7 The personal responsibility of the employer This is also addressed in terms of fault (negligence) rather than strict liability. It is said that the master cannot be required to take more care of the servant than he may be expected to take of himself. 8 Personal responsibility of the employee The judgment imposes a considerable responsibility on the employee personally. It is said that he may decline dangerous work. It also says that he is possibly better placed than the employer to evaluate the dangers (it suggests that this may be because the employee is on the spot, while the employer may be elsewhere). It concludes that the employee has a duty towards the employer, as well as towards himself, to ensure that the task is done safely, so that the employer’s interests do not suffer. (b)Developments after Priestley v Fowler