Safety Health & Environment - Case Study Example

The situation that faced David Mayes and Ian Erickson can well be understood through Criminal and Civil laws. The criminal laws that are closed related to this case are the Section 2(1), Section 2(2) Section 7 and Section 37 and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. a. Section 2(1) This section regards “General Duties of Employers to their Employees” according to this section, the company should be held responsible for any event that shows lack to carry general duties to their two perished workers. It reads, “It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.” Therefore according to this section, the bakery general duties are stipulated and any breach of such calls for compensation in accordance with civil law. Picking the excerpt ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ the section has weight vis-à-vis its qualification with regard to health and safety law. This is further supported by, “so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.” Loader and Sparks (2002) explain that the two highlighted sub-sections compel the company and can be sued for failing to abide by Section 2(1). Similar comparison of this case can be made to the concluded Edwards v National Coal Board [1949]. In this case, the employee failed to “…ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.” In this case, the victim, Edwards died due to the unsupported section of a travelling road around the mine gave way. This is actually the irresponsible part of the company culminated to his death. However, the company put a defense that the risk associated with the project was not prohibited compared to the cost of shoring up the roads in every part of the mine. The court however, made a different ruling arguing that, “Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than ‘physically possible’ and implies that a computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is placed in one scale and the sacrifice, whether in money, time or trouble, involved in the measures necessary to avert the risk is placed in the other; and that, if it is shown that there is a gross disproportion between them, the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice, the person upon whom the duty is laid discharges the burden of proving that compliance was not reasonably practicable. This computation falls to be made at a point of time anterior to the happening of the incident complained of”. i. Giving Comments on Court Ruling Comparing the court ruling on Edwards v National Coal Board [1949] and that of Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co. Ltd. v English [1938], Zedner (2002) explains that are some instances where application of the same rule tend to be contradicted. Basing the argument on the ruling made by House of Lords, “…ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.” meant that there should be “provision and maintenance of: a safe place and safe systems of work; reasonably safe and competent fellow employees; and safe plant and appliances” This shows some contradiction however, House of Lords held such ruling basing on Coal Mines Act 1911, s2(4). Therefore the bakery incidence has no comprehensive meaning of “…duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.” ii. Relevant Case Law Relevant case law can be drawn from relevant civil law and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Regulation 14 whereby according to Lewis (2003) anyone wronged can seek compensation from the organisation causing the “wrong” and this is enshrined in the Law of Torts. The relevant case dealt with under civil law is the Gray, Nicholson v Smiths Ship Repairers whereby the bakery failed in terms of ‘Reasonable foreseeability’ b. Section 7 The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Regulation 14 stipulates the relationship between the employer and employee. It explains, “...an employee to carry out any work in accordance with any training or instruction and to inform the employer of any health and safety” Section 7 comes in because it explains general duties of employees at work. It explains, “the duty of every employee while at work: to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work” taking responsible care for health and safety of himself means that David Mayes and Ian Erickson ought to have taken care of themselves to ensure that health and safety is guaranteed. But in the event of this, the same employer should provide necessary instruction and training regarding working areas. This is what the company breached as the two victims were not briefed on the same. A good reference to this case draws back to the Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co. Ltd [1957]. As explained by Victims Support (2006), the House of Lords held by majority of 3 to 2 that the son and the company to be pay the victim since they did not act responsibly. On the same note, the Bakery did not bring to the attention of the victims the precautions to be taken. i. Giving Comments on Court Ruling The company did not follow this section to the latter. Instead, “Mr. Erickson admitted he wanted to get home early to watch the football on TV” on the other hand, Mr. Mayes had told friends the previous evening he had a challenge tomorrow and he was up for it, the money was good. Such assertion should be condemned strongly as it breaches “...an employee to carry out any work in accordance with any training or instruction and to inform the employer of any health and safety” Though this case has direct relationship with Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co. Ltd [1957], Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Regulation 14 was not in application. It is therefore a question to see if the same regulation will be applied. Finally, regulation 13 regards training of the employees but there was no training given to the victims. iii. Relevant Case Law The ruling made regarding the case involving Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co. Ltd [1957] is a perfect example where section 7 is used in the court proceedings. This case draws relevance from civil cases under Criteria for Breach of Statutory Duty whereby both the Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co. Ltd [1957] and incidence in the bakery amounts to statutory duty owed to the claimant. That is, the claimants are within the class of individuals whom the statute intends to protect. This was a similar thing with Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co. [1862] and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins & Griffiths (Liverpool) Ltd. [1947]. c. Section 2(2) This section has been brought in to act as a leeway to guide the court on specifics regarding maintenance of the plants and other machines. Section 2(2)a explains, “to provide and maintain plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health.” The bone of contention with regard to the incidence in the bakery is the “...so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health.” which Mr. Erickson and Mr. Mayes did not put into consideration. They did not ensure that plants and systems are maintained and safe without any risk to health. Sub-section (2) provides for an extensive mechanism that can be used to compensate dependants of the deceased. Section 2(2)(b) brings a clear picture of the incidence that happened in the bakery and how that can be used in the court of law to challenge for compensation. It states that the employer will “ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances.” This was contrary to what happened with the employees since the situation at hand is that the machine was not allowed to cool for the required period of time (12 hours) this subjected the two victims to unhealthy condition thus contravenes the sub-section quoted above. The court also heard that the men were only given thin suit and elbow pad which a last minute thought anyway. We can relate the case of Wilson & Clyde Coal Co V English (1938) to this situation because the breach caused serious injury as explained by Civil Law under Criteria for Breach of Statutory Duty the case relating to Corn v Weir Glass (Hanley) Ltd. [1960] is another example since the court held that in accordance with Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulation 1948 Reg. 27(1), the owner of the premise did not provide handrail that did not offer the required grips. i. Giving Comments on Court Ruling The company did not act according to the law and is liable for compensation under civil law (Tort of Negligence) whereby the company failed to protect the victims from foreseeable injuries. This is also a case where the two parties were not sufficiently proximate to each other (the neighbour principle) ii. Relevant Case Law Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co. Ltd v English [1937] 3 All ER 628 provides a good reference point to the situation at the bakery. Lord Wright ruled that employer failed to uphold the neighbour principle thus not sufficiently proximate. d. Section 37 It deals with offences that have been committed by corporate bodies. Criminal law has it as Offences by Bodies Corporate. It means that in the process where there is breach of act by the employer, the corporate bodies responsible will be held responsible for such contraventions. It reads, “...the board of directors, individual functional directors and senior managers can all be prosecuted under this section.” i. Giving Comments on Court Ruling The members if staff present during the occurrence of the incidence should be held responsible for failing to uphold needed practices that ensure safety of the workers at work. These acts especially by Mr. Erickson and Mr. Mayes contravened Offences by Bodies Corporate under this section. ii. Relevant Case Law J Armour v J Skeen as explained by Innocent (2006) corresponds with the Offences by Bodies Corporate. In both cases, workers died after the management teams failed to act responsibly. For instance, in J Armour v J Skeen, the worker died after falling while in the process of repairing the bridge. Such death contravenes Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. References Innocent, 2006 INNOCENT is a Manchester-based organisation which supports and campaigns for innocent people in prison. Accessed from http://www.innocent.org.uk/ Lewis, C., 2003 England and Wales, Country report in ‘Victim protection in Criminal proceedings legislation: a pan-European Comparison’ Loader, I. & Sparks, R., 2002 Contemporary landscapes of Crime, Order and Social Control: (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Third Edition, Oxford, OUP, pp.83- 114. Victims Support, 2006 Victims Support Annual Review, 2005. Accessed from www.victimssupport.org.uk Zedner, L., 2002 Victims, Chapter 13 of Maguire, M, Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Third Edition, Oxford, OUP, pp.419 - 458 Read More