Debate over Strict Liability
Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:12 am
Hello HSfB
I apologise if this is in anyway the wrong thing to do but i believe it is more off an eye opener for people coming into the world of H&S and seeing lots of changes occurring within the law and a little debate if thats the right word could explain it a little clear in regard to the old way and now the new way since this has changed. I put debate because I've heard and seen so many mixed views on this within my lectures and on the net when searching.
Currently for my self we have gone over strict liability and the changes made under s47? I believe of HASAWA due to that off The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act. Now for me its still a little hazy in regard to what has actually changed but, if i have learnt anything from UNIT A, no consultation was done before hand of this been put in so i believe?
Again, my understanding off the whole diverse effect on what this has changed from the past is hazy so my apologies for that.
What are your understanding/ thoughts on the changes to this in regard to employers now not been held liable for strict liability in civil proceedings but that off the claimant must prove the employer has been negligent under common law?
On one hand you have the poor employee who has injured his self on a piece of work equipment which the employer has supplied and should have all the necessary provisions in place to ensure its suitability and alike but now the employee has to go down a lengthy path of proving negligence. But on the other hand you have an employer who has a piece of equipment which is fit for purpose, well maintained and no other forceable risk was present before the employee has injured his self and due to this the employer may not be found negligent thus no damages will be paid out to the employee. (example)
I apologise if any off the above is confusing or a little cross wired with correctness (this is just my understanding and would love to hear your views to help myself and others who may be a little unclear with this)
Young Nick
I apologise if this is in anyway the wrong thing to do but i believe it is more off an eye opener for people coming into the world of H&S and seeing lots of changes occurring within the law and a little debate if thats the right word could explain it a little clear in regard to the old way and now the new way since this has changed. I put debate because I've heard and seen so many mixed views on this within my lectures and on the net when searching.
Currently for my self we have gone over strict liability and the changes made under s47? I believe of HASAWA due to that off The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act. Now for me its still a little hazy in regard to what has actually changed but, if i have learnt anything from UNIT A, no consultation was done before hand of this been put in so i believe?
Again, my understanding off the whole diverse effect on what this has changed from the past is hazy so my apologies for that.
What are your understanding/ thoughts on the changes to this in regard to employers now not been held liable for strict liability in civil proceedings but that off the claimant must prove the employer has been negligent under common law?
On one hand you have the poor employee who has injured his self on a piece of work equipment which the employer has supplied and should have all the necessary provisions in place to ensure its suitability and alike but now the employee has to go down a lengthy path of proving negligence. But on the other hand you have an employer who has a piece of equipment which is fit for purpose, well maintained and no other forceable risk was present before the employee has injured his self and due to this the employer may not be found negligent thus no damages will be paid out to the employee. (example)
I apologise if any off the above is confusing or a little cross wired with correctness (this is just my understanding and would love to hear your views to help myself and others who may be a little unclear with this)
Young Nick