Health and Safety Law - Case Study Example

Health and Safety Law Health and Safety Law Introduction Health and safety law is a law body that sees to it that protection is offered to the general public. It ensures that the public’s welfare, safety and health and other specific groups like employees are protected. It has a regulatory framework that operates alongside the system of civil law (Rosalyn, 2014a: 2). This enables lawsuits to be filed by individuals against companies, organizations or even individuals that might be termed as liable for death or personal injury. The outcome of the lawsuit is most often a fine (financial penalty) or even imprisonment of the responsible individual through criminal prosecution. The employee who is injured can also through the civil courts seek damages, compensation due to injuries caused. This is done under the civil law area like occupier’s liability and negligence (Rosalyn, 2014a: 9). Civil Case Law- A claim in the Tort of Negligence (Jane, Sam and Mr. James) The verdict of the lord of Artkin to Donogue vs. Stevenson case in 1932 can be used to act as precedence. He propounded that, “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor…” (Rosalyn, 2014b: 5). In Jane’s case, therefore she should go forward and sue the Local Education Authority. This is because they didn’t avoid the increase in the number of children in the class. In the same sense, the employer would have prevented the grievances through adding an additional staff as a protective measure. In Sam’s case, he should not sue his employee since the negligence was on his part when it comes to his injury. He didn’t put on the protective gears despite the head teacher having commented about the same in several occasions. Mr. James is in a position to sue his employer on the basis that the act of Poppy made him break his arm. The head teacher is a representative of Local Education Authority thus making an act of negligence by the head teacher transferable to the Local Education Authority. The fact that Poppy was invited by the head teacher makes her the head teacher’s responsibility and her negative acts therefore can be summed up to be negligence on part of the head teacher. This is based on the fact that the “duty of care is established as one belonging to the employer to take reasonable care for the health and safety of his employees.” (Rosalyn, 2014b: 5). Jane’s and Mr. James’ case can also be based worth suing in terms of the scope of study. For Jane’s case, the employer would not provide for competent additional staff (Rosalyn, 2014b: 6). For Mr. James case, there was no efficient supervision in relation to Poppy’s activities (Rosalyn, 2014b: 6). The employer also would be sued for failure to provide a safe system of work for the case of the two employees. This is supported by the fact that the injuries that were experienced by the two individuals is something that can be seen thus offers a burden of proof. The case of Jane can be based on the “Gravity of Injury” on the fact that her coming back to school after a first nervous breakdown would place her in the vulnerable bracket (Rosalyn, 2014b: 8). This means that the employer had the responsibility therefore to give a ‘special duty of care’ and see that she didn’t go through nervous breakdown again. Jane’s case can also be based on the fact that she went through a nervous breakdown (categorized under psychiatric damage) due to heavy work load (Rosalyn, 2014b: 8). Criminal Health and Safety Laws and Regulations- In reference to Dave’s Injuries Criminal Health and Safety laws and regulations are policies that are set to ensure that the potential injuries, damages and losses are controlled and the society in general is protected ( Rosalyn, 2014a: 2). Dave went through a back injury due to additional weight based on the children increase. The additional injury that Dave went through was him fainting in the laboratory due to the high temperature caused by lack of ventilation in the structure. The applicable laws that relate to Dave injuries include, ‘The control of major accident hazards regulations 1999’, and ‘Control of substances hazardous to health regulations 2002 (as amended 2003, 2004). The additional laws include, ‘The Chemicals (Hazard Information and packaging for supply) regulations 2002’, ‘The work at heights regulations 2005 (as amended)’ and ‘WAHR 2005’ (Rosalyn, 2014c:2- 33 ). Other laws include, ‘Management of health and safety at work and fire precautions (Workplace) (Amendment) Regulations 2003’, and subsequent regulations like ‘Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (As amended 2002 by SI no. 2174)’. Other subsequent regulations are, ‘Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998’, ‘Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992(as amended 2002)’ and ‘Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 (as amended 2002)’ (Rosalyn, 2014d: 6- 34). The action the school ought to have taken to prevent Dave’s injury is to add an additional stuff to help Dave carry the books. These would have eased the pressure that Dave went through of carrying 18 heavy books for a distance of 100 meters. In the case of the library incident, the school ought to have ensured that all the chemical bottles are labeled appropriately. The information in relation to the chemicals ought to have been given to all the staff since not only Sam is the one that interacts with the bottles. The school ought to have built sufficient ventilation in the laboratory so as to ensure that the laboratory’s temperature doesn’t go overboard (Rosalyn, 2014c:2- 33; Rosalyn, 2014d: 6- 34). The current reporting requirements are that; there must be deaths, injuries or dangerous occurrences to be reported. The person who is responsible must notify the appropriate enforcing authority of the incident that is to be reported as quickly as possible in practical terms. The report should be sent by the responsible person in relation to the occurrence of the incident. The sending of the report should be done in a manner that is approved. The report should be sent to the appropriate enforcing authority within a period of 10 days since the occurrence of the incident. This can be accomplished through the online filing of the form- RIDDOR. In the case of diseases, (i) the person responsible is expected to send a diagnostic report. This should be done in a manner that is approved and should be sent to the appropriate enforcing authority in an appropriate time to avoid delay. (ii) A person that is self employed is allowed to make arrangement on the sending of the reports. Similar to other processes, the report should be sent to the authority that is given the enforcing powers. In relation to mutagens, biological agents and carcinogens, the person responsible must notify the authority that is responsible in a manner that is deemed fit. This means that the report must be published in a form that is appropriate and that is HSE approved (Rosalyn, 2014c: 4). Breach of Health and Safety Regulations- The Enforcement Authority The principal offence as per the case of Dave is failure to ensure the implementation of the ‘Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999’ (Rosalyn, 2014d: 6) The authority has failed to apply the prevention principles thus making the employees like Dave to suffer injuries (Rosalyn, 2014d: 9). This is due to ted fact that the preventative and protective measure were not implemented. The employer also failed to organize, plan, control, review and monitor the protective measures and recording of the same, thus failing to implement what the other teachers had said about ventilation (Rosalyn, 2014d: 9). Another failure as per this regulation is in terms of the health surveillance section. The authority failed to conduct the health surveillance and determine the risks associated with carry heavy weights and making use of non labeled chemicals. There were no techniques that were set in place to ensure that the possible occurrences of impacts to health could be experienced (Rosalyn, 2014d: 10). This made it not easy to prevent the health impacts that Dave went through. From the look of things, one would say that the institution didn’t have a competent person to help the head teacher in making decisions. This can be evaluated as to reasons to why the institution neglected most of the health and safety measure even the basic ones. Dave’s laboratory accident is a scenario associated with lack of basic information in relation to the chemicals. This means that Dave was not provided with the preventive and protective measures in regard to dealing with chemicals (Rosalyn, 2014d: 10). There is also proof that the head teacher didn’t work in collaboration with the employees since he didn’t implement their concern in relation to ventilating the laboratory (Rosalyn, 2014d: 11). This is despite them making several rounds of ventilation development. The head teacher also failed in terms of the implementation of the regulation 15, “Information from the employer to others”. Dave seemed not to be informed enough in relation to the laboratory undertakings (Rosalyn, 2014d: 13). He wasn’t aware of the possibility that chemicals do react and can produce products that are harmful to the health. Seems he wasn’t even aware that chemicals can produce fumes that can make one lose conscience. Dave was not even given the duty or role that he is fond of to conduct. The head teacher seemed to be issuing the roles in a random manner without considering if one had a technical know- how of the issue at hand. There are several enforcement agencies that deal with the laws of health and safety. These include: Scottish parliament, Secretary of State,, The HSE, National Assembly of Wales, the agency that deals with the environment, local authorities and the fire authorities (Rosalyn, 2014e: 37). In the case of Dave the expected authorities of enforcement will be HSE (more specific) and the local authorities. “Section 18 (1) places a duty on the HSE to make arrangements for the enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions, for instance, by employing sufficient number of inspectors. However, under S. 18 (2), the Secretary of State may make local authorities responsible for certain stated activities under regulations.” The HSE as the relevant enforcement authority will appoint inspectors (As per the requirement of section 19) to go and analyze the situation of the laboratory and the children situation. The inspectors will be given powers to investigate the scenario and come up with recommendations that will be tabled to the HSE. The inspector, according to section 20 (2) e will order that the laboratory not e disturbed so as to take the necessary photographs (f), and chemical samples (g) that might be viewed as the cause of harm to Dave. The HSE will then give a direction for the creation of ventilation on the laboratory and labeling of the chemical containers (h). The same time the HSE will take the data collected and use it as evidence in favor of the party that would be aggrieved, in this case Dave (Rosalyn, 2014e: 39). Maximum Penalties for Breach of Regulations The breach of laws that govern health and safety can attract prosecutions and penalties upon proven guilty. The mode of trial can be in the form of Magistrates’ court, also known as summarily or the Crown Court that is commonly referred to as an indictment. This section refers to the verdict made on these two distinct modes of trials with reference to the maximum verdict that the plaintiff might attract if found guilty (West Law, 2008: 3). Magistrates’ Court (Summarily) An offense that is put to be under section 33(1) (a), which entails a failure to do, a duty to which one is entitled to by virtue of the sections 2 to 6 will lead to imprisonment of the defendant if found guilty for a term of 12 months, or a fine of 20,000 Euros or both. For an offense that is graded under section 33 (1) (a) which entails a failure of one to discharge his or her duties to which he or she should in reference to section 7, the defendant if found guilty will be jailed for a duration of 12 months, or a fine worth the statutory maximum or both (West Law, 2008: 3). As per the case study, the defendant here is the Local Education Authority while the plaintiffs are its employees. The charges are in reference to negligence and the assumption made is that the employer had neglected its mandate. The charges here are as per the maximum consideration. Crown Court (Indictment) An offense that is committed under the section 33 (1) (a) that consists of failure on part of the defendant to discharge the duties that he or she is required to in relation to the sections 2- 6, the defendant will receive a two year imprisonment or a fine or both. An offence that is considered to fall under the section 33 (1) (a) that consists of a failure on part of the defendant to discharge his or her duty as spelt in section 7 of the health and safety law will attract a maximum penalty of 2 years, or a fine or both (West Law, 2008: 3). The charges here are in relation to negligence or absconding of duty as witnessed in the case study. The terms stated are in terms of the maximum sentence of maximum fine. This is based on the assumption that negligence occurred on the part of the employer in reference to the case study. Conclusion Health and safety laws ensure that the employee, the employer and the general public leaves in a healthy and fulfilling environment. This is through the protection of the health and needs of both thus making the essence of equity and fairness. Jane has the moral right to sue her employer in terms if the damages and the pain that she was forced to went though. This is not the same case with Sam because proving linking the injuries or costs with the employer’s negligence is not practical. Similar to Jane, Mr. James should sue the employer since there are damages that can be used as evidence and also the cause of the accident can be linked to the employer. There are several regulations in the United Kingdom that addresses health and safety in criminal terms. This law and regulations can therefore be used in the criminal courts to charge for criminal cases that are linked to negligence. Each and every law’s effectiveness normally has an enforcement authority that is given the mandate by to conduct specific duties. Breaching of the health and safety laws can attract maximum penalties. This penalties can be in the form of summarily (maximum court) or indictment (crown court). References Rosalyn, M. (2014a) Principle of Health and Safety: Legal Concepts, Cardiff: University of South Wales. Rosalyn, M. (2014b) Principle of Health and Safety: Civil Law and Product Safety, Cardiff: University of Wales. Rosalyn, M. (2014c) Principle of Health and Safety: Further UK Regulations, Cardiff: University of South Wales. Rosalyn, M. (2014d) Principle of Health and Safety: European Union Health and Safety Law and UK Regulations, Cardiff: University of Wales. Rosalyn, M. (2014e) Principle of Health and Safety: UK health and Safety Legislation, Cardiff: University of South Wales. West Law (2008) Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008: 2008 Chapter 20, London: Thomson Reuters (Legal) Limited. Read More