|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
... Many cases are compared to the Taylor case to allow the author to draw conclusions from other “like” cases. ...
Taylor v Rover Company Ltd and others. ... The result of the case meant that the Plaintiff sued his employer and suppliers of the chisel, it was also found that the Company was held accountable for the supervisors failure to withdraw the chisel from service and for breach of duty of care,
The Plaintiff won the case. ...
In Mason v Williams and Williams (1955),9 the case states that after the chisel had been used for some time the wear and damage caused by repeated blows on the chisel head was obvious. In the case of Taylor he should have been aware of this damage (mushrooming) and taken responsibility for his own actions and “dressed” the head back to a safe condition.
In Davie v The New Merton Board Mills (1959),10 the case describes possible design errors if the employer designed the chisel, this can be substantiated if the hardening and tempering specification was included in the design. ...
In Haseldine v Daw (1941),11 this case held that the suppliers of the chisels were in breach of their duty of care as the tools provided were not fit for the purpose intended. ... v English (1938),12 the ultimate responsibility of duty of care is owned by the employer and cannot be delegated to other employees. In Taylor, his supervisor, and therefore the companies representative, it was held that the company was accountable as he had failed to remove the chisels from use. This is also seen in McDermid v Nash Dredging & Reclamation Ltd (1987)13 and Morris v Breaveglen Ltd T/A Anzac Construction (1993). ...
Paris v Stepney District Council (1951),15 case also has parallels toTaylor where safety goggles were not issued for work as it was not customary, the case concludes that the company breached their duty of care. Taylor’s supervisor knew of the dangers and should have taken steps to reduce or eliminate the danger.
In Finch v Telegraph Construction and Maintenance Co. ... With the information at Taylor’s and his supervisor’s disposal prior to his accident, they could be described as being contributory to the accident, the case makes no reference to any reduction in payment for damages. ... Sargeant (2001),19 also confirms that, “ there is an obligation on employees to inform the employer, or any other person responsibility for health and safety, of any work situation which might present a serious and imminent danger to health and safety”, see White v Holbrook Precision Castings Ltd (1985),20 and Close v Steel Company of Wales Ltd (1960). ... ”
Further, MG Rover’s Health and Safety Policy, 2000,23 states, “cooperate with the company regarding their own health and safety at work and that of any other person who may be affected by their work”. ...
The Health and Safety at Work (HASAW) Legislation, The reporting of injuries, diseases and Dangerous occurrences regulations 1985,25 states, “that an employee, trainee or member of the public that has an accident must report this in writing to the company”. Taylor’s supervisor would now have to report the accident by Law and further investigation as to the cause would be carried to ensure that safe equipment was being used and taken out of service if this was not the case. ...
The risk assessment rating is derived from the formula, “rating = consequence x likelihood,” 27 in the case of Taylor the consequence rating would have been “high” causing a score of 4 and the likelihood rating would have been ”almost certain” causing a score of 5, giving an overall score of 20 which equates to a high risk rating. In the case of Taylor, this would have had the biggest most singular impact to the “safe system of work and safe equipment and plant” 22.
Approximate Word count = 3125
Approximate Pages = 12.5
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|