(ii) Employer must operate a safe system MCARTHUR v BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD (1968) 6 KIR 40 British Railways Board used various classes of locomotives for distant shunting runs. The model which the deceased was driving at the time of the fatal accident provided no visibility to a driver undertaking tender-first travel, unless he put out his head and looked along the side or over the tender. The journey the deceased had to undertake included a bridge, which was generally known to provide an unusually small clearance on the controls side of a locomotive driven tender-first and there was a signal near to that bridge. Drivers had complained that tender-first running on this route with engines with poor visibility was unsafe. The depot shed master asked for better engines (Q1s), but he was told that none could be spared. The deceased suffered his fatal accident when he leant out of the cab to observe the signal and was struck when passing the bridge. The widow brought a successful action against the board for their negligence in not having re-routed her husband so that he drove engine-first, for not providing a locomotive with tender-first visibility and in not putting a notice to warn the driver against putting his head out. The following passage is from the judgment of Eveleigh J, at p 47:

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-92

Chapter

(ii) Employer must operate a safe system MCARTHUR v BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD (1968) 6 KIR 40 British Railways Board used various classes of locomotives for distant shunting runs. The model which the deceased was driving at the time of the fatal accident provided no visibility to a driver undertaking tender-first travel, unless he put out his head and looked along the side or over the tender. The journey the deceased had to undertake included a bridge, which was generally known to provide an unusually small clearance on the controls side of a locomotive driven tender-first and there was a signal near to that bridge. Drivers had complained that tender-first running on this route with engines with poor visibility was unsafe. The depot shed master asked for better engines (Q1s), but he was told that none could be spared. The deceased suffered his fatal accident when he leant out of the cab to observe the signal and was struck when passing the bridge. The widow brought a successful action against the board for their negligence in not having re-routed her husband so that he drove engine-first, for not providing a locomotive with tender-first visibility and in not putting a notice to warn the driver against putting his head out. The following passage is from the judgment of Eveleigh J, at p 47:

Chapter

(ii) Employer must operate a safe system MCARTHUR v BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD (1968) 6 KIR 40 British Railways Board used various classes of locomotives for distant shunting runs. The model which the deceased was driving at the time of the fatal accident provided no visibility to a driver undertaking tender-first travel, unless he put out his head and looked along the side or over the tender. The journey the deceased had to undertake included a bridge, which was generally known to provide an unusually small clearance on the controls side of a locomotive driven tender-first and there was a signal near to that bridge. Drivers had complained that tender-first running on this route with engines with poor visibility was unsafe. The depot shed master asked for better engines (Q1s), but he was told that none could be spared. The deceased suffered his fatal accident when he leant out of the cab to observe the signal and was struck when passing the bridge. The widow brought a successful action against the board for their negligence in not having re-routed her husband so that he drove engine-first, for not providing a locomotive with tender-first visibility and in not putting a notice to warn the driver against putting his head out. The following passage is from the judgment of Eveleigh J, at p 47:

ABSTRACT

British Railways Board used various classes of locomotives for distant shunting runs. The model which the deceased was driving at the time of the fatal accident provided no visibility to a driver undertaking tender-first travel, unless he put out his head and looked along the side or over the tender. The journey the deceased had to undertake included a bridge, which was generally known to provide an unusually small clearance on the controls side of a locomotive driven tender-first and there was a signal near to that bridge. Drivers had complained that tender-first running on this route with engines with poor visibility was unsafe. The depot shed master asked for better engines (Q1s), but he was told that none could be spared. The deceased suffered his fatal accident when he leant out of the cab to observe the signal and was struck when passing the bridge. The widow brought a successful action against the board for their negligence in not having re-routed her husband so that he drove engine-first, for not providing a locomotive with tender-first visibility and in not putting a notice to warn the driver against putting his head out. The following passage is from the judgment of Eveleigh J, at p 47:

– – –

(iii) Employer must protect against mental stress

WALKER v NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL [1995] IRLR 35

The plaintiff had worked for the defendants as an area social services officer for 17 years, responsible for managing four teams of social service field workers in the Blyth Valley area an area particularly productive of child care problems. In spite of the plaintiff’s frequent requests to his superiors for further staff and for management guidance, neither was forthcoming.