Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
![(i) Employer must instruct and train If the defendant is sued as an employer by one of its own employees, rather than as an occupier by a visiting worker, it is more likely that it will be expected to have taken positive steps to safeguard the claimant. If the claimant is an employee, then what is expected from the defendant employer will depend on the skill, training and experience of the claimant. BUX v SLOUGH METALS LTD [1974] 1 All ER 262 The claimant was a Pakistani with a limited command of English, who worked from 1968 in the defendant’s die casting foundry. His work involved removing molten metal from a furnace by means of a ladle and pouring from the ladle into a die. He was trained for the work without being instructed to wear goggles. In 1969 a new works’ director purchased goggles and supplied a pair to each of the 15 die casters. The claimant wore them for only a few days, because he found that they misted up. He ceased to wear them, telling the superintendent of the foundry that they were useless. In 1970 molten metal was splashed into his eyes. The claimant’s action for damages included a claim that his employers had been negligent in that they had failed to instruct him to wear the goggles provided. The trial judge found that the defendant employers had been negligent, but reduced the claimant’s damages by 20% to take account of his contributory negligence. The defendants appealed, claiming that as they had fulfilled their statutory duty under the Non-Ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations 1962 to provide suitable goggles they could not be found liable for negligence. The claimant’s case was that the employer owed him a common law duty that went beyond the statutory one. The following extracts are taken from the judgment of Edmund Davies LJ, beginning at p 26:](https://images.tandf.co.uk/common/jackets/crclarge/978185941/9781859415603.jpg "(i) Employer must instruct and train If the defendant is sued as an employer by one of its own employees, rather than as an occupier by a visiting worker, it is more likely that it will be expected to have taken positive steps to safeguard the claimant. If the claimant is an employee, then what is expected from the defendant employer will depend on the skill, training and experience of the claimant. BUX v SLOUGH METALS LTD [1974] 1 All ER 262 The claimant was a Pakistani with a limited command of English, who worked from 1968 in the defendant’s die casting foundry. His work involved removing molten metal from a furnace by means of a ladle and pouring from the ladle into a die. He was trained for the work without being instructed to wear goggles. In 1969 a new works’ director purchased goggles and supplied a pair to each of the 15 die casters. The claimant wore them for only a few days, because he found that they misted up. He ceased to wear them, telling the superintendent of the foundry that they were useless. In 1970 molten metal was splashed into his eyes. The claimant’s action for damages included a claim that his employers had been negligent in that they had failed to instruct him to wear the goggles provided. The trial judge found that the defendant employers had been negligent, but reduced the claimant’s damages by 20% to take account of his contributory negligence. The defendants appealed, claiming that as they had fulfilled their statutory duty under the Non-Ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations 1962 to provide suitable goggles they could not be found liable for negligence. The claimant’s case was that the employer owed him a common law duty that went beyond the statutory one. The following extracts are taken from the judgment of Edmund Davies LJ, beginning at p 26:")
Chapter
(i) Employer must instruct and train If the defendant is sued as an employer by one of its own employees, rather than as an occupier by a visiting worker, it is more likely that it will be expected to have taken positive steps to safeguard the claimant. If the claimant is an employee, then what is expected from the defendant employer will depend on the skill, training and experience of the claimant. BUX v SLOUGH METALS LTD [1974] 1 All ER 262 The claimant was a Pakistani with a limited command of English, who worked from 1968 in the defendant’s die casting foundry. His work involved removing molten metal from a furnace by means of a ladle and pouring from the ladle into a die. He was trained for the work without being instructed to wear goggles. In 1969 a new works’ director purchased goggles and supplied a pair to each of the 15 die casters. The claimant wore them for only a few days, because he found that they misted up. He ceased to wear them, telling the superintendent of the foundry that they were useless. In 1970 molten metal was splashed into his eyes. The claimant’s action for damages included a claim that his employers had been negligent in that they had failed to instruct him to wear the goggles provided. The trial judge found that the defendant employers had been negligent, but reduced the claimant’s damages by 20% to take account of his contributory negligence. The defendants appealed, claiming that as they had fulfilled their statutory duty under the Non-Ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations 1962 to provide suitable goggles they could not be found liable for negligence. The claimant’s case was that the employer owed him a common law duty that went beyond the statutory one. The following extracts are taken from the judgment of Edmund Davies LJ, beginning at p 26:
DOI link for (i) Employer must instruct and train If the defendant is sued as an employer by one of its own employees, rather than as an occupier by a visiting worker, it is more likely that it will be expected to have taken positive steps to safeguard the claimant. If the claimant is an employee, then what is expected from the defendant employer will depend on the skill, training and experience of the claimant. BUX v SLOUGH METALS LTD [1974] 1 All ER 262 The claimant was a Pakistani with a limited command of English, who worked from 1968 in the defendant’s die casting foundry. His work involved removing molten metal from a furnace by means of a ladle and pouring from the ladle into a die. He was trained for the work without being instructed to wear goggles. In 1969 a new works’ director purchased goggles and supplied a pair to each of the 15 die casters. The claimant wore them for only a few days, because he found that they misted up. He ceased to wear them, telling the superintendent of the foundry that they were useless. In 1970 molten metal was splashed into his eyes. The claimant’s action for damages included a claim that his employers had been negligent in that they had failed to instruct him to wear the goggles provided. The trial judge found that the defendant employers had been negligent, but reduced the claimant’s damages by 20% to take account of his contributory negligence. The defendants appealed, claiming that as they had fulfilled their statutory duty under the Non-Ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations 1962 to provide suitable goggles they could not be found liable for negligence. The claimant’s case was that the employer owed him a common law duty that went beyond the statutory one. The following extracts are taken from the judgment of Edmund Davies LJ, beginning at p 26:
(i) Employer must instruct and train If the defendant is sued as an employer by one of its own employees, rather than as an occupier by a visiting worker, it is more likely that it will be expected to have taken positive steps to safeguard the claimant. If the claimant is an employee, then what is expected from the defendant employer will depend on the skill, training and experience of the claimant. BUX v SLOUGH METALS LTD [1974] 1 All ER 262 The claimant was a Pakistani with a limited command of English, who worked from 1968 in the defendant’s die casting foundry. His work involved removing molten metal from a furnace by means of a ladle and pouring from the ladle into a die. He was trained for the work without being instructed to wear goggles. In 1969 a new works’ director purchased goggles and supplied a pair to each of the 15 die casters. The claimant wore them for only a few days, because he found that they misted up. He ceased to wear them, telling the superintendent of the foundry that they were useless. In 1970 molten metal was splashed into his eyes. The claimant’s action for damages included a claim that his employers had been negligent in that they had failed to instruct him to wear the goggles provided. The trial judge found that the defendant employers had been negligent, but reduced the claimant’s damages by 20% to take account of his contributory negligence. The defendants appealed, claiming that as they had fulfilled their statutory duty under the Non-Ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations 1962 to provide suitable goggles they could not be found liable for negligence. The claimant’s case was that the employer owed him a common law duty that went beyond the statutory one. The following extracts are taken from the judgment of Edmund Davies LJ, beginning at p 26:
Click here to navigate to parent product.
ABSTRACT
Basing himself largely on the evidence of the defendants’ own expert witness, Mr Bevan, the [trial] judge said:
‘... in my view [what] a reasonable and careful employer should have done was to institute a system and at least endeavour to make it a rule that goggles will be worn. I think, on the facts of this case [counsel for the defendants] was
entitled to say that there was, in effect, acquiescence in goggles not being worn in this department. I think that a different atmosphere should have been created and that insistence should have been shown on men wearing goggles. They should have been educated and there should have been a degree of cooperation with them about the wearing of goggles, instead of leaving the matter entirely to them, which was in fact the position.’
