Discussion of a Case of Health Situation in a Factory in the State of Negligence - Assignment Example

Name Course Lecturer Date Application of law Every nation around the world has law. Laws are set norms that guide the daily governance of these nations (Shook, 303). Laws are very general statements. They therefore need to be articulated to particular situations. This articulation focuses on particular application in order to make it relevant. In these casuistic applications, some clauses are interpreted in reference to the general statements making it easier to deal with the various applications. In this paper is a discussion of a case of health situation in a factory in a state of negligence. There are various parts that need attention and installation of warning signs within the factory’s various sections. Bearing this situation in mind, it will be demonstrated, if and how the factory has violated the provisions of criminal statute law. In addition, it will also check the breach of the civil statute law in the same case and show the various responsibilities that are not considered in the same case. Before any further discussion in this case is made, a clarification should be made as to what is meant by criminal statute law as well as civil statute law. Criminal statute law refers to the various explanations which indicate the acts that are accepted or forbidden within a given law. In other words, this law describes the various responsibilities or entitlements that a person ought to accomplish. Failure to observe their duties causes their direct or indirect liability of a given crime (Brüggemeier, 47). The rules in these cases base on previous or preceding ones. This way, a case is decided according to what has been decided by courts before. On the same note, cases are decided in lower courts following the order of decisions of the higher courts. Negligence in this case is defined in regard to what is legally practicable or is reasonably practicable (Hughes & Ferretti, 525). On the other hand is the civil law statute is based on the principle of neighbour (Hughes & Ferreti, 525). This suggests that a person has to consider the other person before acting on anything. It is therefore a form of obligation to being one’s brother’s keeper. There are some specific duties in health as well as safety that are considered under this statute. The statute law therefore is taken to take precedence over common law in case a conflict emerges as per which one is to be applied. Despite the fact that criminal law bases itself on statute law, a tort of breach exists regarding statutory duty which is usually used in case a person seeks compensation for an accident or even illness (Brody et al, 41). Civil law as such is based either on common or statute law. Negligence in this law is considered in terms of the absence of reasonable care resulting into injury, harm or damage of another’s wellbeing. It is therefore logical to conclude that criminal law seeks to protect every person in the society. Civil law on the other hand protects and recompenses any citizen or organization (Hughes & Ferreti, 525) In the above discussion it is observed that both criminal statute law and civil statute law are necessary to be considered in daily circumstances. This means that in the above case, there are a number of violations that may arise. In the first thing to consider here are the individual considerations that are involved in it. Since a person is supposed to practice what is practicable or what is reasonably practicable (Hughes & Ferrett, 525), there are a number of players in the case. The various individuals working in this factory include the managing staff, and the working staff. Moreover, the health inspectors too come into the same case. Beginning with the managing staff, their work is to coordinate the various duties of the working staff. If the matter has been reported to the managing staff on the various renovations and adjustments, then reasonably they have not done what is expected of them. According to the law, they should have taken a step further to implement the repairs such that working would be in a safe environment. Floors, stairs, steps, passages and so on should be constructed in a good way that is free from slipping or obstructions. Maintenance is the case of this factory (Health and Safety at Work, 1974). The primary duty of management is that of ensuring these conditions are observed. It has therefore failed in their duty of doing the most reasonably practicable thing, therefore endangering the life of the workers. On the same note if an accident occurred they can be guilty of criminal vicarious liability. In this form of liability, the blame goes to the employer who fails to observe the working conditions of the employees (Brody et al, 255). The working group on the other hand is not the one which not culpable. Actually, it could be the fact that they have failed to show any concern to the management staff of the falling parts. When conditions worsen in this case, it should be reported to the top staff for the necessary funding for the necessary repairs. Choosing to keep quiet, even if silenced, there is another way of addressing the issue by reporting to the governmental inspecting bodies to ensure that the necessary measures are taken (Safety at. Section 41G of the 1948 Act states that occupiers (workers) should set up a safety committee of work representatives as well as management to promote a good cooperation between them, that is, the workers and the managers. Furthermore, this committee should make sure that no rights shall be infringed. In the above case, if that had been observed, then something should have been done in time. The other task of workers is stated in Section 41 of the Act. It states that “it is a right of the workers to warn about imminent danger.” This thus puts the workers sense of care into a very questionable situation. If such a danger is noticed, they have to bring it into the knowledge of the occupiers, manager, agents or any relevant authority. Moreover, this can be reported to safety committee or take a notice to the inspector. On the other hand, if there is dissatisfaction by the management or the one in charge ought to object the claims of an existing danger reported by the workers to the nearest inspector for clarification. The report by the security company is an indication that a care needs to be taken in order to avoid the unnecessary and unpleasant outcome that may result from any accident happening. Someone may argue that that the unlawful entries reported may not be culpable on the factory and its management. This is a matter of concern when it comes to the civil statute law. As observed above the statute bases itself on the neighbour principle, or care for the other (Hughes & Ferretti, 525). It is thus observable that there is not reasonableness in the act of first leaving the building in such a condition. Ignoring the present conditions indicates that the owner of the building is not acting in the best way possible to prevent possible outcomes of preventing entry into the factory. The above acts are foreseeable and the owner of the factory is supposed to take action (Hodgson et al, 62). However assuming that the owner of the factory or the management have never been able to notice the said conditions as many may argue, it may give a space for accepting their non-involvement in the breaking of a civil statute. But that means that if they have never been able to know, then they have been ignorant, and the ignorance itself vincible. This makes the owner of the factory liable of causing injury to people entering. It may also be argued that despite the nature of the factory and its condition, the management being aware has employed guards to ensure that no unlawful entry into the factory is done. This is one way of saying anybody entering the factory will have either used another entry that is not the gate or forced his/her way inside. Furthermore, there is reasonable foreseeability of injury or harm, and to overcome it measures put in place. In this case an injury or harm happening to such a person will be foreseeable and prevented. The ignorance will also be vincible thus the owner will not be responsible for the harm caused or any form of compensation (Lunney& Oliphant, 144). There is also the other group of inspectors that comes in the matter of being liable for violating the civil statute. These are responsible for the failure to ensure that the place has been inspected and measures taken if no actions for preventing injury are taken. This means that the health and safety inspectors should actually be the first in sending warning signals in the matter. They are thus responsible for breach causing loss. In this case, it is an avoidance or reluctance in executing duty. Birks and Pretto (11) argue that a breach of the duty that a party is owed can be sued to recover any losses that are caused to the other party. This means that as a matter of duty by the Safety and Inspection Authorities can be sued. However, this cannot apply to them if for example this happens between one inspection and the other as scheduled. This means that unless it is reported to them there was no way of knowing the happening and therefore the ignorance could be said to be invincible on their side. That is why Birks & Pretto (11) say that “this does not happen where there is no breach of duty owed to that other.” It further implies that the duty of the inspectors is only questionable if it is not executed in the right manner. Finally, a party entering the factory knowing the condition it is endangers his own life. This means that he or she is responsible for the death. Knowledge of the place includes being warned but adamantly getting into the factory. This is an outright failure on the side of the victim which does not guarantee him/her of any compensation. However, some other factors may be called into place like the persons psychological disposition at the time of entering the factory compound. In case of insanity, nobody can be blamed if the possible means of blocking such a person were in vain (Burgess et al, 39). A conclusion on this matter on discussion can be drawn by noting that a verdict on a case involving a case like this will call for many parties. It will first involve those in charge of the factory, the persons who may work inside, the inspecting body and the victim him/herself. This means that it is not a matter of just looking or making a directly applied decision, it is matter of considering parties and factors involved. It is therefore wise to accept that a claim of law should be wisely and stringently vetted for the best verdict. Works Cited Brody, David C, and James R. Acker. Criminal Law. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2010. Print. Brody, David C, James R. Acker, and Wayne A. Logan. Criminal Law. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, 2000. Print. Brüggemeier, Gert. Modernising Civil Liability Law in Europe, China, Brazil and Russia: Texts and Commentaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print. Burgess, Ann W, Cheryl Regehr, and Albert R. Roberts. Victimology: Theories and Applications. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2010. Print. Health and Safety at Work (HASAWA), Her Majesty’s Stationery, London, 1974 print. Hodgson, John S, Hodgson-Lewthwaite, and John Lewthwaite. Tort Law Textbook. Oxford [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2007. Print. Hughes, Phil., Ferretti, Ed., Introduction to health and safety in construction. London, Loutledge, 2012. Legal Approach, The Factories Act, 1948 (Sec 31 to 69), 2008 – 2012. Available at Accessed on 29/04/2013. Lunney, Mark, and Ken Oliphant. Tort Law: Text and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. Shook, John. Companion to Pragmatism. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 2007. Internet resource. Read More