Fire, Health and Safety - Assignment Example

Fire, Health and Safety In this problem, a factory site, with a two – storey warehouse, was in a dilapidated condition. For assessing the possible violations of law, the following discussion has been undertaken. The building was maintained in a damaged condition, and there were unrepaired holes in the floorboards. Moreover, electricity to the building had been disconnected. This had rendered it dangerous for any person entering the building. As such, it would be hazardous for the employees working in this building. A few signboards, indicating danger had been placed on the sides of the staircase. This does not provide adequate warning regarding the possible risks. In addition, the security company disclosed the incidence of unlawful entry into the warehouse. Introduction The Health, Safety and Welfare, etc. Act 1974, imposes wide and general duties on employers. These require the employers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their employees at work. For instance, Section 2(1) of this Act declares that the employer is duty bound to ensure, to the extent that is practically feasible, the health, safety, and welfare of his employees at work. Moreover, Section 2(2) of this very same Act enumerates specific duties related to the plant, and systems of work, articles and substances, information, instruction, training, supervision, place of work, and working environment (Tehrani, 2002, p. 474). On establishing negligence, suitable punishment for the employer is determined by the law. In addition, the compensation to be paid to the harmed employee, for the distress, damages, and pain undergone is decided. In our case, the employer had breached the provisions of The Health, Safety and Welfare, etc. Act 1974, by not maintaining the work place according to reasonable standards. Furthermore, criminal liability in health and safety, is chiefly determined by what is reasonably practicable. On the other hand, the usual basis for civil liability is what is reasonably foreseeable. The significant overlap between civil and criminal liability in health and safety, tends to complicate the correlation between these two concepts (Branson, 2012, p. 49). The Health, Safety and Welfare, etc. Act 1974 is central to the imposition of criminal liability relating to health and safety. The principle of duty of care was recognised for the first time, in Donoghue v Stevenson, by their Lordships. The victim, Donoghue, had detected a decomposed snail in a bottle of ginger beer. She was successful in her claim for damages against the manufacturers of the ginger beer (Tehrani, 2002, p. 474). In addition, in Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English, it was clearly illustrated that the Health, Safety and Welfare, etc. Act 1974 is essentially based on the civil law duty of care. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the subordinate legislation that has been enacted under the Health, Safety and Welfare, etc. Act 1974, permits civil and criminal liability at the same time, with regard to the same regulations. Some examples of the subordinate legislation are the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Workplace Regulations 1992. On the other hand, reasonable foreseeability is a notion that is critical in the definition of liability, with respect to the common law tort of negligence, which is the principal civil action that is brought in instances of injury at work (Branson, 2012, p. 49). The Health, Safety and Welfare, etc. Act 1974 also imposes duties on employers and the self – employed with respect to their relation to persons other than their employees, under Section 3(1). Moreover, this Act, under Section 4, imposes certain duties on individuals responsible for premises, with regard to persons visiting the premises, other than the employees (Howes, 2009, p. 306). As such, in our problem, the maintenance manager is responsible for the safety of persons other than employees. Strictly speaking, the duty imposed upon employers by Section 2(1) of the Act is similar to the duty imposed on employers by Section 3(1), with respect to individuals not in the employment of these employers. This duty emerges from the concept that every employer has to ensure that his business operations are conducted in a manner that does not jeopardise his employees or other people (Howes, 2009, p. 306). In our problem, the absence of electrical power supply to the building jeopardises the safety of others. Thus, the employer has breached Section 3(1) of the Health, Safety and Welfare, etc. Act 1974. In R v Gateway Food markets Ltd, the court analysed the objective behind the legislation, and clarified that Section 2(1) of the 1974 Act, was to be interpreted in a specific manner. This interpretation was to render the employer liable, if there had been a failure to preserve the health, safety, or welfare of an employee at work. However, the employer should have failed to adopt reasonably practicable measures to protect his employees at work (Howes, 2009, p. 306). It is required by the law, for employers to perform a risk assessment. This task requires the employer to arrive at reasonable and proportionate interventions to control risk (Health and Safety Executive). In our present problem, the employer had not conducted a proper risk assessment. As such, the employer had failed to take proper steps to avoid possible risks in the work place. Some of the measures to be adopted, in order to ensure the safety of the workplace are given below. First, the premises and work equipment have to be maintained in a proper manner. Second, there should be no impediment to free flow in traffic routes and floors. Third, the windows at the workplace should be capable of being opened and cleaned safely. Fourth, transparent doors or walls have to be adequately protected or constructed from safety material (Health and Safety Executive). In our problem, the employer had not taken any of the above mentioned measures. In Westminster City Council v Select Management Ltd, a block of flats was owned and managed by the defendants. The plaintiff undertook enforcement action against the defendant, on account of the hazardous condition of the electrical installations and lifts in the common areas of the building. This action was taken under the provisions of Section 4 of the 1974 Act (Chynoweth, 2002).The court held that the common areas of the building constituted non – domestic premises, within the meaning of Section 4 of the 1974 Act. In our problem, the employer had not maintained the work place in a proper condition. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, provide a procedural framework that enables employers to fulfil their extant duties under the 1974 Act. The duties specified by these regulations are deemed to constitute extensions of the duties stipulated by the Health, Safety and Welfare, etc. Act 1974. Consequently, breach of these duties constitutes a criminal offence (Chynoweth, 2002). As such, the employer is required by these regulations to undertake a risk assessment. Such assessment has to evaluate the dangers posed to health and safety in the workplace that could affect employees or others present at the workplace. Section 1(2) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 states that the occupier of any premises owes a duty with respect to the premises. Some examples of the extent of this duty are; first, a common duty of care to all his visitors. Second, to ensure that visitors have reasonable safety, while using the premises for the purpose for which the visitor entered the premises. Such purpose should have been permitted by the occupier. Third, the occupier has to adopt safety measures relating to the premises, with the assumption that children are less careful than adults (Occupiers Liability Act 1984). Conclusion The Health and Safety legislation requires the employer to ensure sufficient material, provide proper and effective supervision, and to have in place competent staff. Thus, an employer has to take reasonable care to provide safety with regard to the workplace, plant and equipment, staff, and system of work, under all circumstances. In our problem, the employer had failed to exercise the care required by the law. The possible risks in our present problem are danger to the safety of the workers present on the top floor. This is on account of holes in the floorboard. The placing of a danger sign board on either side of the stair case will not solve this problem. As such, the maintenance manager is liable under the provisions of the Health, Safety and Welfare, etc. Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, and other subordinate legislation, such as, Workplace Regulations 1992. The maintenance manager of the organisation, per se, is responsible for the proper maintenance of the premises and the availability of electrical power on the premises. The security manager is responsible for the safety of the premises and for preventing trespass. In case, there are no such managers, then the employer becomes liable. Moreover, the employer will be liable for any dangerous incidents on the premises caused to others, under the provisions of the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. References Branson, D., 2012. Tides of opinion. The Safety & Health Practitioner, 30(5), pp. 49 – 52. Chynoweth, P., 2002. Employer's Statutory Health & Safety Responsibilities. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 May 2013]. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) UKHL 100. Health and Safety Executive, 2009. Example risk assessment for maintenance work in a factory. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 May 2013]. Health and Safety Executive. How do civil law and health and safety law apply?. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 May 2013]. Health and Safety Executive. Provide the right workplace facilities. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 May 2013]. Howes, V., 2009. Duties and Liabilities under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974: A Step Forward?. Industrial Law Journal, 38(3), pp. 306 – 317. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992. London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Occupiers Liability Act 1984. London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Part I Health, Safety and Welfare in connection with Work, and Control of Dangerous Substances and Certain Emissions into the Atmosphere, 1974. London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. R v Gateway Foodmarkets Ltd (1997) 3 All ER 78. Tehrani, N., 2002. Workplace trauma and the law. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(6), pp. 473 – 477. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Westminster City Council v Select Management Ltd (1985) 1 All ER 897. Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English (1937) UKHL 2. Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Read More