presenting the case. The victim will therefore have to consider carefully whether the final award will be sufficiently substantial to make the outlay worthwhile, and also whether if the award is substantial the other party will have the funds with which to honour it. For example there in no reason in law why individual workers should not be liable to compensate for injuries which they unlawfully cause to their colleagues; in practice such persons are not normally sued because it is unlikely that they will be able to meet any award of damages made against them. Exceptionally the wrongdoing worker may be covered by personal insurance, for example he may have been driving his own car at the time of an accident in which the claimant was injured, but even in these circumstances, suing the driver may not be the best way forward. The rules of vicarious liability normally ensure that the employer is the defendant in actions where the actual wrongdoer was an employee. The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and the Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 impose duties on the employer to carry insurance cover as specified in these Acts. For this reason alone the employer is likely to be the chosen defendant if the victim is an employee. Another reason why employees have, historically at least, tended to sue their employers, is that the employer has an onerous responsibility to provide employees with a safe system of work, including instruction and plant and equipment appropriate to the task. However, the employer may not, of course, be carrying the cover the law requires! In practice, substantial organisations are more attractive as defendants than small organisations, because they are likely to be sufficiently well managed to carry substantial insurance cover, and, if this is not so, they are nevertheless more likely than smaller organisations to have independent funds to meet their liabilities. Moreover it may be possible to bring evidence to show that a large organisation, especially if it is head contractor for the operation in which the victim was engaged, had an overriding obligation to provide a safe system of work, not dissimilar to that normally imposed upon the worker’s employer. Another factor which has to be considered is that the net sum which reaches the claimant may be relatively small, even where the injury has been a serious one. Now that the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 enables courts to reduce awards to take account of the claimant’s contributory negligence, the victim will need to feel confident that there is no evidence available to the defendant to show that the claimant himself was, to some extent, at fault. Also, the defendant may make an offer of out of court settlement. If this occurs, then the claimant will need to consider carefully whether a successful hearing of his case would be likely to conclude with an award substantially higher than that being offered. If his advisers cannot feel confident of this, then he may face the delay and expense of litigation to no purpose, especially as the court becoming aware, as it will at the end of the case, that a reasonable

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-127

Chapter

presenting the case. The victim will therefore have to consider carefully whether the final award will be sufficiently substantial to make the outlay worthwhile, and also whether if the award is substantial the other party will have the funds with which to honour it. For example there in no reason in law why individual workers should not be liable to compensate for injuries which they unlawfully cause to their colleagues; in practice such persons are not normally sued because it is unlikely that they will be able to meet any award of damages made against them. Exceptionally the wrongdoing worker may be covered by personal insurance, for example he may have been driving his own car at the time of an accident in which the claimant was injured, but even in these circumstances, suing the driver may not be the best way forward. The rules of vicarious liability normally ensure that the employer is the defendant in actions where the actual wrongdoer was an employee. The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and the Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 impose duties on the employer to carry insurance cover as specified in these Acts. For this reason alone the employer is likely to be the chosen defendant if the victim is an employee. Another reason why employees have, historically at least, tended to sue their employers, is that the employer has an onerous responsibility to provide employees with a safe system of work, including instruction and plant and equipment appropriate to the task. However, the employer may not, of course, be carrying the cover the law requires! In practice, substantial organisations are more attractive as defendants than small organisations, because they are likely to be sufficiently well managed to carry substantial insurance cover, and, if this is not so, they are nevertheless more likely than smaller organisations to have independent funds to meet their liabilities. Moreover it may be possible to bring evidence to show that a large organisation, especially if it is head contractor for the operation in which the victim was engaged, had an overriding obligation to provide a safe system of work, not dissimilar to that normally imposed upon the worker’s employer. Another factor which has to be considered is that the net sum which reaches the claimant may be relatively small, even where the injury has been a serious one. Now that the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 enables courts to reduce awards to take account of the claimant’s contributory negligence, the victim will need to feel confident that there is no evidence available to the defendant to show that the claimant himself was, to some extent, at fault. Also, the defendant may make an offer of out of court settlement. If this occurs, then the claimant will need to consider carefully whether a successful hearing of his case would be likely to conclude with an award substantially higher than that being offered. If his advisers cannot feel confident of this, then he may face the delay and expense of litigation to no purpose, especially as the court becoming aware, as it will at the end of the case, that a reasonable

Chapter

presenting the case. The victim will therefore have to consider carefully whether the final award will be sufficiently substantial to make the outlay worthwhile, and also whether if the award is substantial the other party will have the funds with which to honour it. For example there in no reason in law why individual workers should not be liable to compensate for injuries which they unlawfully cause to their colleagues; in practice such persons are not normally sued because it is unlikely that they will be able to meet any award of damages made against them. Exceptionally the wrongdoing worker may be covered by personal insurance, for example he may have been driving his own car at the time of an accident in which the claimant was injured, but even in these circumstances, suing the driver may not be the best way forward. The rules of vicarious liability normally ensure that the employer is the defendant in actions where the actual wrongdoer was an employee. The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and the Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 impose duties on the employer to carry insurance cover as specified in these Acts. For this reason alone the employer is likely to be the chosen defendant if the victim is an employee. Another reason why employees have, historically at least, tended to sue their employers, is that the employer has an onerous responsibility to provide employees with a safe system of work, including instruction and plant and equipment appropriate to the task. However, the employer may not, of course, be carrying the cover the law requires! In practice, substantial organisations are more attractive as defendants than small organisations, because they are likely to be sufficiently well managed to carry substantial insurance cover, and, if this is not so, they are nevertheless more likely than smaller organisations to have independent funds to meet their liabilities. Moreover it may be possible to bring evidence to show that a large organisation, especially if it is head contractor for the operation in which the victim was engaged, had an overriding obligation to provide a safe system of work, not dissimilar to that normally imposed upon the worker’s employer. Another factor which has to be considered is that the net sum which reaches the claimant may be relatively small, even where the injury has been a serious one. Now that the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 enables courts to reduce awards to take account of the claimant’s contributory negligence, the victim will need to feel confident that there is no evidence available to the defendant to show that the claimant himself was, to some extent, at fault. Also, the defendant may make an offer of out of court settlement. If this occurs, then the claimant will need to consider carefully whether a successful hearing of his case would be likely to conclude with an award substantially higher than that being offered. If his advisers cannot feel confident of this, then he may face the delay and expense of litigation to no purpose, especially as the court becoming aware, as it will at the end of the case, that a reasonable

DOI link for presenting the case. The victim will therefore have to consider carefully whether the final award will be sufficiently substantial to make the outlay worthwhile, and also whether if the award is substantial the other party will have the funds with which to honour it. For example there in no reason in law why individual workers should not be liable to compensate for injuries which they unlawfully cause to their colleagues; in practice such persons are not normally sued because it is unlikely that they will be able to meet any award of damages made against them. Exceptionally the wrongdoing worker may be covered by personal insurance, for example he may have been driving his own car at the time of an accident in which the claimant was injured, but even in these circumstances, suing the driver may not be the best way forward. The rules of vicarious liability normally ensure that the employer is the defendant in actions where the actual wrongdoer was an employee. The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and the Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 impose duties on the employer to carry insurance cover as specified in these Acts. For this reason alone the employer is likely to be the chosen defendant if the victim is an employee. Another reason why employees have, historically at least, tended to sue their employers, is that the employer has an onerous responsibility to provide employees with a safe system of work, including instruction and plant and equipment appropriate to the task. However, the employer may not, of course, be carrying the cover the law requires! In practice, substantial organisations are more attractive as defendants than small organisations, because they are likely to be sufficiently well managed to carry substantial insurance cover, and, if this is not so, they are nevertheless more likely than smaller organisations to have independent funds to meet their liabilities. Moreover it may be possible to bring evidence to show that a large organisation, especially if it is head contractor for the operation in which the victim was engaged, had an overriding obligation to provide a safe system of work, not dissimilar to that normally imposed upon the worker’s employer. Another factor which has to be considered is that the net sum which reaches the claimant may be relatively small, even where the injury has been a serious one. Now that the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 enables courts to reduce awards to take account of the claimant’s contributory negligence, the victim will need to feel confident that there is no evidence available to the defendant to show that the claimant himself was, to some extent, at fault. Also, the defendant may make an offer of out of court settlement. If this occurs, then the claimant will need to consider carefully whether a successful hearing of his case would be likely to conclude with an award substantially higher than that being offered. If his advisers cannot feel confident of this, then he may face the delay and expense of litigation to no purpose, especially as the court becoming aware, as it will at the end of the case, that a reasonable

presenting the case. The victim will therefore have to consider carefully whether the final award will be sufficiently substantial to make the outlay worthwhile, and also whether if the award is substantial the other party will have the funds with which to honour it. For example there in no reason in law why individual workers should not be liable to compensate for injuries which they unlawfully cause to their colleagues; in practice such persons are not normally sued because it is unlikely that they will be able to meet any award of damages made against them. Exceptionally the wrongdoing worker may be covered by personal insurance, for example he may have been driving his own car at the time of an accident in which the claimant was injured, but even in these circumstances, suing the driver may not be the best way forward. The rules of vicarious liability normally ensure that the employer is the defendant in actions where the actual wrongdoer was an employee. The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and the Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 impose duties on the employer to carry insurance cover as specified in these Acts. For this reason alone the employer is likely to be the chosen defendant if the victim is an employee. Another reason why employees have, historically at least, tended to sue their employers, is that the employer has an onerous responsibility to provide employees with a safe system of work, including instruction and plant and equipment appropriate to the task. However, the employer may not, of course, be carrying the cover the law requires! In practice, substantial organisations are more attractive as defendants than small organisations, because they are likely to be sufficiently well managed to carry substantial insurance cover, and, if this is not so, they are nevertheless more likely than smaller organisations to have independent funds to meet their liabilities. Moreover it may be possible to bring evidence to show that a large organisation, especially if it is head contractor for the operation in which the victim was engaged, had an overriding obligation to provide a safe system of work, not dissimilar to that normally imposed upon the worker’s employer. Another factor which has to be considered is that the net sum which reaches the claimant may be relatively small, even where the injury has been a serious one. Now that the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 enables courts to reduce awards to take account of the claimant’s contributory negligence, the victim will need to feel confident that there is no evidence available to the defendant to show that the claimant himself was, to some extent, at fault. Also, the defendant may make an offer of out of court settlement. If this occurs, then the claimant will need to consider carefully whether a successful hearing of his case would be likely to conclude with an award substantially higher than that being offered. If his advisers cannot feel confident of this, then he may face the delay and expense of litigation to no purpose, especially as the court becoming aware, as it will at the end of the case, that a reasonable

ABSTRACT

The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and the Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 impose duties on the employer to carry insurance cover as specified in these Acts. For this reason alone the employer is likely to be the chosen defendant if the victim is an employee. Another reason why employees have, historically at least, tended to sue their employers, is that the employer has an onerous responsibility to provide employees with a safe system of work, including instruction and plant and equipment appropriate to the task. However, the employer may not, of course, be carrying the cover the law requires! In practice, substantial organisations are more attractive as defendants than small organisations, because they are likely to be sufficiently well managed to carry substantial insurance cover, and, if this is not so, they are nevertheless more likely than smaller organisations to have independent funds to meet their liabilities. Moreover it may be possible to bring evidence to show that a large organisation, especially if it is head contractor for the operation in which the victim was engaged, had an overriding obligation to provide a safe system of work, not dissimilar to that normally imposed upon the worker’s employer.