(ii) Breach of statutory duty may create civil liability Nineteenth century regulatory legislation, such as the Factories Acts, which required persons, such as employers, to comply with safety standards, normally provided for criminal sanctions to be imposed on those who failed to meet the required standards. Towards the end of the century the courts decided that those who suffered injury as the result of a failure to comply with standards imposed for their protection might use the statutory provision as the basis on which to found civil liability. The principle thus allowed has remained part of the law up until this day, though it will in due course be seen that it has not always been accepted without dispute and in every case there may be questions as to whether the principle is applicable in relation to the particular statute relied upon. The principle was very helpful to accident victims at a time when the common law of negligence had yet to be developed. The following case is usually regarded as the origin of the principle: GROVES v WIMBORNE (LORD) [1898] 2 QB 402 The action was to recover damages for an alleged breach by the defendant of the statutory duty imposed upon him by s 6 of the Factory and Workshop Act 1878, in allowing certain dangerous machinery to be and remain unfenced, causing the worker to suffer personal injury. The worker was a boy employed by the defendant at Dowlais Iron Works. Among the machinery in the works was a steam winch, at which the victim was employed. The winch had revolving cogwheels that, if unfenced, were dangerous to a person working the winch. There was evidence that there had originally been a guard to these cogwheels, but it had been removed and there had been no guard throughout the six months of the victim’s employment. The victim’s right arm was caught by the cogwheels and was so badly injured that the forearm had to be amputated. The judge held that an action would not lie for breach of the statutory duty imposed by s 6, but the damages were provisionally assessed at the sum of £150. The judge entered judgment for the defendant and the victim appealed. The following extracts are from the judgment of AL Smith LJ, given in the Court of Appeal, beginning at p 406 of the report:

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-52

Chapter

(ii) Breach of statutory duty may create civil liability Nineteenth century regulatory legislation, such as the Factories Acts, which required persons, such as employers, to comply with safety standards, normally provided for criminal sanctions to be imposed on those who failed to meet the required standards. Towards the end of the century the courts decided that those who suffered injury as the result of a failure to comply with standards imposed for their protection might use the statutory provision as the basis on which to found civil liability. The principle thus allowed has remained part of the law up until this day, though it will in due course be seen that it has not always been accepted without dispute and in every case there may be questions as to whether the principle is applicable in relation to the particular statute relied upon. The principle was very helpful to accident victims at a time when the common law of negligence had yet to be developed. The following case is usually regarded as the origin of the principle: GROVES v WIMBORNE (LORD) [1898] 2 QB 402 The action was to recover damages for an alleged breach by the defendant of the statutory duty imposed upon him by s 6 of the Factory and Workshop Act 1878, in allowing certain dangerous machinery to be and remain unfenced, causing the worker to suffer personal injury. The worker was a boy employed by the defendant at Dowlais Iron Works. Among the machinery in the works was a steam winch, at which the victim was employed. The winch had revolving cogwheels that, if unfenced, were dangerous to a person working the winch. There was evidence that there had originally been a guard to these cogwheels, but it had been removed and there had been no guard throughout the six months of the victim’s employment. The victim’s right arm was caught by the cogwheels and was so badly injured that the forearm had to be amputated. The judge held that an action would not lie for breach of the statutory duty imposed by s 6, but the damages were provisionally assessed at the sum of £150. The judge entered judgment for the defendant and the victim appealed. The following extracts are from the judgment of AL Smith LJ, given in the Court of Appeal, beginning at p 406 of the report:

Chapter

(ii) Breach of statutory duty may create civil liability Nineteenth century regulatory legislation, such as the Factories Acts, which required persons, such as employers, to comply with safety standards, normally provided for criminal sanctions to be imposed on those who failed to meet the required standards. Towards the end of the century the courts decided that those who suffered injury as the result of a failure to comply with standards imposed for their protection might use the statutory provision as the basis on which to found civil liability. The principle thus allowed has remained part of the law up until this day, though it will in due course be seen that it has not always been accepted without dispute and in every case there may be questions as to whether the principle is applicable in relation to the particular statute relied upon. The principle was very helpful to accident victims at a time when the common law of negligence had yet to be developed. The following case is usually regarded as the origin of the principle: GROVES v WIMBORNE (LORD) [1898] 2 QB 402 The action was to recover damages for an alleged breach by the defendant of the statutory duty imposed upon him by s 6 of the Factory and Workshop Act 1878, in allowing certain dangerous machinery to be and remain unfenced, causing the worker to suffer personal injury. The worker was a boy employed by the defendant at Dowlais Iron Works. Among the machinery in the works was a steam winch, at which the victim was employed. The winch had revolving cogwheels that, if unfenced, were dangerous to a person working the winch. There was evidence that there had originally been a guard to these cogwheels, but it had been removed and there had been no guard throughout the six months of the victim’s employment. The victim’s right arm was caught by the cogwheels and was so badly injured that the forearm had to be amputated. The judge held that an action would not lie for breach of the statutory duty imposed by s 6, but the damages were provisionally assessed at the sum of £150. The judge entered judgment for the defendant and the victim appealed. The following extracts are from the judgment of AL Smith LJ, given in the Court of Appeal, beginning at p 406 of the report:

DOI link for (ii) Breach of statutory duty may create civil liability Nineteenth century regulatory legislation, such as the Factories Acts, which required persons, such as employers, to comply with safety standards, normally provided for criminal sanctions to be imposed on those who failed to meet the required standards. Towards the end of the century the courts decided that those who suffered injury as the result of a failure to comply with standards imposed for their protection might use the statutory provision as the basis on which to found civil liability. The principle thus allowed has remained part of the law up until this day, though it will in due course be seen that it has not always been accepted without dispute and in every case there may be questions as to whether the principle is applicable in relation to the particular statute relied upon. The principle was very helpful to accident victims at a time when the common law of negligence had yet to be developed. The following case is usually regarded as the origin of the principle: GROVES v WIMBORNE (LORD) [1898] 2 QB 402 The action was to recover damages for an alleged breach by the defendant of the statutory duty imposed upon him by s 6 of the Factory and Workshop Act 1878, in allowing certain dangerous machinery to be and remain unfenced, causing the worker to suffer personal injury. The worker was a boy employed by the defendant at Dowlais Iron Works. Among the machinery in the works was a steam winch, at which the victim was employed. The winch had revolving cogwheels that, if unfenced, were dangerous to a person working the winch. There was evidence that there had originally been a guard to these cogwheels, but it had been removed and there had been no guard throughout the six months of the victim’s employment. The victim’s right arm was caught by the cogwheels and was so badly injured that the forearm had to be amputated. The judge held that an action would not lie for breach of the statutory duty imposed by s 6, but the damages were provisionally assessed at the sum of £150. The judge entered judgment for the defendant and the victim appealed. The following extracts are from the judgment of AL Smith LJ, given in the Court of Appeal, beginning at p 406 of the report:

(ii) Breach of statutory duty may create civil liability Nineteenth century regulatory legislation, such as the Factories Acts, which required persons, such as employers, to comply with safety standards, normally provided for criminal sanctions to be imposed on those who failed to meet the required standards. Towards the end of the century the courts decided that those who suffered injury as the result of a failure to comply with standards imposed for their protection might use the statutory provision as the basis on which to found civil liability. The principle thus allowed has remained part of the law up until this day, though it will in due course be seen that it has not always been accepted without dispute and in every case there may be questions as to whether the principle is applicable in relation to the particular statute relied upon. The principle was very helpful to accident victims at a time when the common law of negligence had yet to be developed. The following case is usually regarded as the origin of the principle: GROVES v WIMBORNE (LORD) [1898] 2 QB 402 The action was to recover damages for an alleged breach by the defendant of the statutory duty imposed upon him by s 6 of the Factory and Workshop Act 1878, in allowing certain dangerous machinery to be and remain unfenced, causing the worker to suffer personal injury. The worker was a boy employed by the defendant at Dowlais Iron Works. Among the machinery in the works was a steam winch, at which the victim was employed. The winch had revolving cogwheels that, if unfenced, were dangerous to a person working the winch. There was evidence that there had originally been a guard to these cogwheels, but it had been removed and there had been no guard throughout the six months of the victim’s employment. The victim’s right arm was caught by the cogwheels and was so badly injured that the forearm had to be amputated. The judge held that an action would not lie for breach of the statutory duty imposed by s 6, but the damages were provisionally assessed at the sum of £150. The judge entered judgment for the defendant and the victim appealed. The following extracts are from the judgment of AL Smith LJ, given in the Court of Appeal, beginning at p 406 of the report:

ABSTRACT

The principle thus allowed has remained part of the law up until this day, though it will in due course be seen that it has not always been accepted without dispute and in every case there may be questions as to whether the principle is applicable in relation to the particular statute relied upon. The principle was very helpful to accident victims at a time when the common law of negligence had yet to be developed. The following case is usually regarded as the origin of the principle:

GROVES v WIMBORNE (LORD) [1898] 2 QB 402

The action was to recover damages for an alleged breach by the defendant of the statutory duty imposed upon him by s 6 of the Factory and Workshop Act 1878, in allowing certain dangerous machinery to be and remain unfenced, causing the worker to suffer personal injury. The worker was a boy employed by the defendant at Dowlais Iron Works. Among the machinery in the works was a steam winch, at which the victim was employed. The winch had revolving cogwheels that, if unfenced, were dangerous to a person working the winch. There was evidence that there had originally been a guard to these cogwheels, but it had been removed and there had been no guard throughout the six months of the victim’s employment. The victim’s right arm was caught by the cogwheels and was so badly injured that the forearm had to be amputated.