Learning Outcomes
After studying this article, you should understand the employer's primary duty at common law concerning the provision and maintenance of safe work equipment and machinery for employees. You will learn about the scope of this duty, its non-delegable nature, and how it interacts with relevant statutory provisions like the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. This knowledge is essential for identifying potential breaches and advising on liability in SQE1 scenarios involving workplace accidents caused by faulty equipment.
SQE1 Syllabus
For SQE1, you are required to understand the principles governing an employer's liability in tort, specifically the common law duty related to workplace safety. This includes the specific obligation concerning work equipment. Key areas for revision include:
- the content and scope of the employer's common law duty to provide safe plant and equipment.
- the non-delegable nature of this duty.
- the standard of care expected from a reasonable employer.
- how statutory provisions, such as PUWER 1998 and the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969, supplement the common law position.
- potential defences available to an employer in claims related to defective equipment.
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
- True or False: An employer can delegate their common law duty to provide safe equipment to an independent contractor?
- Which Act imposes liability on an employer for injury caused by equipment defects attributable to a third party (like the manufacturer)?
- What is the general standard of care expected of an employer regarding equipment safety?
Introduction
An employer owes several duties to their employees under common law to ensure their safety at work. One of the fundamental duties established in Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57 relates to the provision of adequate plant and equipment. This means employers must take reasonable steps to ensure that the machinery, tools, and equipment provided for employees are safe and suitable for the tasks they are required to perform. This article focuses specifically on this aspect of the employer's primary liability in negligence, exploring its scope, the standard of care required, and its interaction with statutory duties. Understanding this duty is essential for assessing liability in workplace accident scenarios involving equipment.
The Common Law Duty: Safe Plant and Equipment
Employers have a common law duty to take reasonable care to provide adequate plant and equipment for their employees. This duty forms part of the broader non-delegable duty of care owed by an employer to ensure the safety of their employees during their employment.
Scope of the Duty
The duty extends beyond merely supplying equipment. It encompasses ensuring the equipment is suitable for its intended purpose, is properly maintained, and is safe to use. This includes providing necessary safety features, such as guards on machinery, and appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) where risks cannot be eliminated.
Key Term: Adequate Plant and Equipment
This refers to machinery, tools, appliances, and any other items provided by the employer for use in the course of employment. The equipment must be suitable for the task and maintained in a safe condition.
The definition of 'equipment' is broad. As seen in Knowles v Liverpool County Council [1993] 1 WLR 1428 (HL), it covers 'any article of whatever kind furnished by the employer for the purposes of his business', which in that case included a flagstone an employee was required to handle.
Maintenance and Inspection
Part of providing safe equipment involves ensuring it remains safe throughout its use. This requires employers to implement regular systems of inspection and maintenance. Failure to maintain equipment properly, leading to an accident, can constitute a breach of duty.
Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969
This Act significantly impacts the employer's liability. It provides that where an employee suffers injury in the course of their employment due to a defect in equipment provided by the employer, and that defect is wholly or partly attributable to the fault of a third party (such as the manufacturer), the injury is deemed also to be attributable to the employer's negligence.
Key Term: Defective Equipment
Equipment with a fault or flaw that renders it unsafe for its intended use, potentially causing injury. Under the 1969 Act, liability can arise even if the defect was caused by a third party.
This means an employee injured by defective equipment does not necessarily need to pursue a complex claim against the manufacturer; they can sue the employer directly, even if the employer was not negligent in selecting or maintaining the equipment, provided a third party was at fault for the defect.
Standard of Care: The Reasonable Employer
The standard of care expected is that of the reasonable and prudent employer. This involves assessing the risks associated with the equipment and taking proportionate steps to mitigate those risks. Factors considered include:
- The likelihood of harm occurring.
- The potential severity of the harm.
- The cost and practicability of taking precautions.
- Common practice within the industry (though compliance with common practice is not conclusive evidence of meeting the standard).
The employer must consider the individual circumstances of the employee. For example, in Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367, an employer was found negligent for not providing safety goggles to a one-eyed employee, even though it was not standard practice for two-eyed employees doing the same work, because the consequences of injury were much more severe for that specific employee.
Worked Example 1.1
An employee, Maya, is injured when a grinding machine malfunctions due to a worn-out component. Her employer, Factory Ltd, had purchased the machine from a reputable supplier six months ago and had followed the manufacturer's basic maintenance schedule. However, a more detailed inspection, common in the industry for this type of machine after five months of use, would have revealed the wear. Is Factory Ltd likely to be in breach of its duty?
Answer:
Yes, Factory Ltd is likely in breach. The standard is that of the reasonable employer, which includes adhering to industry best practices for inspection, especially for potentially dangerous machinery. Failing to conduct the more detailed inspection, even if following the manufacturer's minimum schedule, arguably falls below the standard of reasonable care expected in the circumstances, given the industry practice.
Interaction with Statutory Duties (PUWER 1998)
While civil liability for breach of health and safety regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 is largely excluded by s.47 HSWA (as amended), these regulations still inform the standard of care expected at common law. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) impose specific duties regarding equipment suitability (Reg 4), maintenance (Reg 5), inspection (Reg 6), information/instructions (Reg 8), and training (Reg 9).
Failure to comply with PUWER standards, while not directly actionable in tort by the employee, provides strong evidence that the employer has breached their common law duty of care.
Revision Tip
Remember that the common law duty regarding equipment is non-delegable. An employer cannot escape liability by arguing they relied on an external contractor for maintenance or inspection if that contractor was negligent. The employer remains responsible for ensuring reasonable care is taken.
Exam Warning
Do not confuse the employer's primary liability (the duty to take reasonable care for the employee's safety, including providing safe equipment) with vicarious liability (liability for the torts committed by another employee). A claim regarding faulty equipment provided by the employer falls under primary liability.
Worked Example 1.2
Chen works for BuildCo Ltd on a construction site. He is provided with a ladder which appears sound but has a latent defect (a hidden crack) caused during manufacture. The defect was not discoverable by reasonable inspection by BuildCo Ltd. The ladder breaks while Chen is using it, causing him injury. Can Chen sue BuildCo Ltd?
Answer:
Yes. Under the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969, BuildCo Ltd is deemed negligent because Chen's injury resulted from a defect in equipment provided by the employer, and the defect was attributable to the fault of a third party (the manufacturer). BuildCo Ltd is liable even though it could not have discovered the defect through reasonable inspection.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- Employers owe a common law duty to take reasonable care to provide employees with adequate and safe plant and equipment.
- This duty includes ensuring equipment is suitable, maintained, and inspected, and that employees are trained in its use.
- The duty is non-delegable; the employer remains liable even if tasks are delegated.
- The standard of care is that of the reasonable employer, considering risk, severity, and practicability of precautions.
- The Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 imposes liability on employers for defects caused by third-party fault.
- Statutory regulations like PUWER inform the standard of care required at common law.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Adequate Plant and Equipment
- Defective Equipment
